BACKGROUND: To determine whether a restrictive strategy of red-cell transfusion and a liberal strategy produced equivalent results in critically ill patients, we compared the rates of death from all causes at 30 days and the severity of organ dysfunction. METHODS: We enrolled 838 critically ill patients with euvolemia after initial treatment who had hemoglobin concentrations of less than 9.0 g per deciliter within 72 hours after admission to the intensive care unit and randomly assigned 418 patients to a restrictive strategy of transfusion, in which red cells were transfused if thehemoglobin concentration dropped below 7.0 g per deciliter and hemoglobin concentrations were maintained at 7.0 to 9.0 g per deciliter, and 420 patients to a liberal strategy, in which transfusions were given when the hemoglobin concentration fell below 10.0 g per deciliter and hemoglobin concentrations were maintained at 10.0 to 12.0 g per deciliter. RESULTS: Overall, 30-day mortality was similar in the two groups (18.7 percent vs. 23.3 percent, P= 0.11). However, the rates were significantly lower with the restrictive transfusion strategy among patients who were less acutely ill -- those with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of < or =20 (8.7 percent in the restrictive-strategy group and 16.1 percent in the liberal-strategy group; P=0.03) -- and among patients who were less than 55 years of age (5.7 percent and 13.0 percent, respectively; P=0.02), but not among patients with clinically significant cardiac disease (20.5 percent and 22.9 percent, respectively; P=0.69). The mortality rate during hospitalization was significantly lower in the restrictive-strategy group (22.3 percent vs. 28.1 percent, P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A restrictive strategy of red-cell transfusion is at least as effective as and possibly superior to a liberal transfusion strategy in critically ill patients, with the possible exception of patients with acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: To determine whether a restrictive strategy of red-cell transfusion and a liberal strategy produced equivalent results in critically ill patients, we compared the rates of death from all causes at 30 days and the severity of organ dysfunction. METHODS: We enrolled 838 critically ill patients with euvolemia after initial treatment who had hemoglobin concentrations of less than 9.0 g per deciliter within 72 hours after admission to the intensive care unit and randomly assigned 418 patients to a restrictive strategy of transfusion, in which red cells were transfused if the hemoglobin concentration dropped below 7.0 g per deciliter and hemoglobin concentrations were maintained at 7.0 to 9.0 g per deciliter, and 420 patients to a liberal strategy, in which transfusions were given when the hemoglobin concentration fell below 10.0 g per deciliter and hemoglobin concentrations were maintained at 10.0 to 12.0 g per deciliter. RESULTS: Overall, 30-day mortality was similar in the two groups (18.7 percent vs. 23.3 percent, P= 0.11). However, the rates were significantly lower with the restrictive transfusion strategy among patients who were less acutely ill -- those with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of < or =20 (8.7 percent in the restrictive-strategy group and 16.1 percent in the liberal-strategy group; P=0.03) -- and among patients who were less than 55 years of age (5.7 percent and 13.0 percent, respectively; P=0.02), but not among patients with clinically significant cardiac disease (20.5 percent and 22.9 percent, respectively; P=0.69). The mortality rate during hospitalization was significantly lower in the restrictive-strategy group (22.3 percent vs. 28.1 percent, P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A restrictive strategy of red-cell transfusion is at least as effective as and possibly superior to a liberal transfusion strategy in critically ill patients, with the possible exception of patients with acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina.
Authors: Julian C L Wong; Francesco Torella; Sarah L Haynes; Kirsteen Dalrymple; Andrew J Mortimer; Charles N McCollum Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Teresa C Rice; Amanda M Pugh; Charles C Caldwell; Barbara St Pierre Schneider Journal: Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 1.326
Authors: Laura E Fredenburgh; Mark A Perrella; Diana Barragan-Bradford; Dean R Hess; Elizabeth Peters; Karen E Welty-Wolf; Bryan D Kraft; R Scott Harris; Rie Maurer; Kiichi Nakahira; Clara Oromendia; John D Davies; Angelica Higuera; Kristen T Schiffer; Joshua A Englert; Paul B Dieffenbach; David A Berlin; Susan Lagambina; Mark Bouthot; Andrew I Sullivan; Paul F Nuccio; Mamary T Kone; Mona J Malik; Maria Angelica Pabon Porras; Eli Finkelsztein; Tilo Winkler; Shelley Hurwitz; Charles N Serhan; Claude A Piantadosi; Rebecca M Baron; B Taylor Thompson; Augustine Mk Choi Journal: JCI Insight Date: 2018-12-06
Authors: María García-Roa; María Del Carmen Vicente-Ayuso; Alejandro M Bobes; Alexandra C Pedraza; Ataúlfo González-Fernández; María Paz Martín; Isabel Sáez; Jerard Seghatchian; Laura Gutiérrez Journal: Blood Transfus Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 3.443