| Literature DB >> 35482965 |
Peter Bruun-Rasmussen1,2, Per Kragh Andersen3, Karina Banasik2, Søren Brunak2, Pär Ingemar Johansson1.
Abstract
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have found no evidence that the storage time of transfused red blood cell (RBC) units affects recipient survival. However, inherent difficulties in conducting RBC transfusion RCTs have prompted critique of their design, analyses, and interpretation. Here, we address these issues by emulating hypothetical randomized trials using large real-world data to further clarify the adverse effects of storage time. We estimated the comparative effect of transfusing exclusively older vs fresher RBC units on the primary outcome of death, and the secondary composite end point of thromboembolic events, or death, using inverse probability weighting. Thresholds were defined as 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks of storage. A large Danish blood transfusion database from the period 2008 to 2018 comprising >900 000 transfusion events defined the observational data. A total of 89 799 patients receiving >340 000 RBC transfusions during 28 days of follow-up met the eligibility criteria. Treatment with RBC units exclusively fresher than 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks of storage was found to decrease the 28-day recipient mortality with 2.44 percentage points (pp) (0.86 pp, 4.02 pp), 1.93 pp (0.85 pp, 3.02 pp), 1.06 pp (-0.20 pp, 2.33 pp), and -0.26 pp (-1.78 pp, 1.25 pp) compared with transfusing exclusively older RBC units, respectively. The 28-day risk differences for the composite end point were similar. This study suggests that transfusing exclusively older RBC units stored for >1 or 2 weeks increases the 28-day recipient mortality and risk of thromboembolism or death compared with transfusing fresher RBC units.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35482965 PMCID: PMC9227103 DOI: 10.1182/blood.2022015892
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Blood ISSN: 0006-4971 Impact factor: 25.476
Figure 1.Flowchart of eligible patients and transfusion records, the Capital Region of Denmark transfusion database, 2008 to 2018.
Study population characteristics for the mortality analyses (N = 89 799)
| Characteristic | Value |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Mean ± SD | 68.8 ± 16.6 |
| Median [1st, 99th] | 71.0 [23.0, 96.0] |
|
| |
| Male | 40 490 (45.1%) |
| Female | 49 309 (54.9%) |
|
| |
| Mean ± SD | 2.68 ± 2.46 |
| Median [1st, 99th] | 2.00 [0, 10.0] |
|
| |
| 0 | 37 022 (41.2%) |
| A | 39 101 (43.5%) |
| AB | 3879 (4.3%) |
| B | 9797 (10.9%) |
|
| |
| Negative | 14 108 (15.7%) |
| Positive | 75 691 (84.3%) |
|
| |
| Bispebjerg | 11 192 (12.5%) |
| Bornholms | 2208 (2.5%) |
| Herlev | 19 589 (21.8%) |
| Hvidovre | 16 628 (18.5%) |
| Nordsjaellands | 13 628 (15.2%) |
| Rigshospitalet | 26 554 (29.6%) |
|
| |
| Hematology | 3843 (4.3%) |
| Oncology | 5914 (6.6%) |
| Thoracic surgery | 5205 (5.8%) |
| Other | 74 837 (83.3%) |
|
| |
| Mean ± SD | 26.7 ± 6.67 |
| Median [1st, 99th] | 29.0 [1.00, 29.0] |
|
| |
| Yes | 180 (0.2%) |
| No | 89 619 (99.8%) |
|
| |
| Yes | 11 408 (12.7%) |
| No | 78 391 (87.3%) |
|
| |
| Mean ± SD | 3.81 ± 5.07 |
| Median [1st, 99th] | 2.00 [1.00, 23.0] |
|
| |
| Mean ± SD | 5.14 ± 18.3 |
| Median [1st, 99th] | 0 [0, 100] |
|
| |
| Mean ± SD | 41.2 ± 44.1 |
| Median [1st, 99th] | 25.0 [0, 100] |
|
| |
| Mean ± SD | 72.9 ± 40.2 |
| Median [1st, 99th] | 100 [0, 100] |
|
| |
| Mean ± SD | 88.8 ± 28.0 |
| Median [1st, 99th] | 100 [0, 100] |
SD, standard deviation.
Estimated average treatment effect between treatment with exclusively fresher vs older RBC units in the mortality analyses on days 7, 14, 21, and 28 after the baseline transfusion
| Day | Risk difference (pp) (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1-Week threshold | 2-Week threshold | 3-Week threshold | 4-Week threshold | |
| 7 | 0.07 (–0.94, 1.08) | −0.11 (–0.68, 0.46) | 0.02 (–0.66, 0.70) | −0.28 (–1.18, 0.61) |
| 14 | 1.07 (–0.17, 2.32) | 0.54 (–0.22, 1.30) | 0.48 (–0.43, 1.39) | −0.39 (–1.55, 0.76) |
| 21 |
|
| 0.87 (–0.25, 1.98) | −0.39 (–1.74, 0.96) |
| 28 |
|
| 1.06 (–0.20, 2.33) | −0.26 (–1.78, 1.25) |
Boldfaced risk difference estimates indicate statistical significance at a 95% confidence level.
Figure 2.The estimated average survival probability under each treatment strategy (fresher vs older RBC units) and for the current practice (natural course) up to 28 days after the baseline transfusion with 95% confidence intervals for the mortality analyses.
Figure 3.The estimated average treatment effect between treatment with exclusively fresher vs older RBC units up to 28 days after the baseline transfusion with 95% confidence intervals for the mortality analyses.