restrictive blood transfusion strategies 2014.pdf

Aperçu du fichier PDF restrictive-blood-transfusion-strategies-2014.pdf

Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Aperçu texte

Salpeter et al

Restrictive Transfusion Strategies and Clinical Outcomes


the approach has been to march slowly down on the transprotocol shown in Appendix Tables 1 and 2, online). We
fusion trigger instead of addressing whether transfusions
included trials of adults or children, including neonates,
are beneficial at all.
involving surgical or medical conditions. Trials that used a
The standard transfusion trigger for many years had
restrictive transfusion trigger more than 7 g/dL were evalbeen a hemoglobin of 10 g/dL or even higher.6,9,12,13 This
uated separately as a “less restrictive” strategy. Additional
arbitrary trigger has been lowered gradually to a hemoglobin
searches of related articles were done to perform a syslevel of 6 to 8 g/dL because studies
tematic review of the impact of
showed that blood transfusions are
various transfusion strategies.
associated with worse outcomes in
patients with anemia due to illness
Pooled randomized trial data show that
Data Extraction and Quality
or bleeding, compared with simple
blood transfusions increase in-hospital
supportive measures such as hymortality, total mortality, rebleeding,
Two investigators (SS, JB) exdration.
However, a liberal
acute coronary syndrome, pulmonary
tracted data from the trials,
transfusion practice is still comedema, and bacterial infections.
reconciling differences by conmon, especially for those with
sensus. In addition, selected incoronary artery disease who are
When a restrictive hemoglobin transvestigators were contacted for
thought to benefit more from blood
fusion trigger of <7 g/dL is used in
additional information. Clinical
transfusions.21 There have been
patients with critical illness or bleed, the
outcomes evaluated included inmany challenges inherent in the
number needed to treat to prevent 1
hospital mortality, 30-day mortalstudy of our transfusion practices,
death is 33.
ity, total mortality, acute coronary
such as the broad patient base
syndrome, pulmonary edema,
Observational data indicate that hemoincluded in the analyses, the mulbacterial infections, rebleeding,
tiple indications for blood transglobin levels of 5 to 6 g/dL are well
number of patients receiving any
fusions, and the confounding by
tolerated in normovolemic patients
blood transfusion, and units of
indication in observational studies.
without affecting oxygen delivery.
blood transfused per patient.
We have found no randomized
Extracted data also included inclinical trials comparing transformation
design, participant characterfusion with no transfusion. Instead, the available trials
the included trials (detailed
have compared more or less restrictive transfusion strastudy
tegies using different transfusion triggers. A previous
meta-analysis pooled data from randomized trials that
evaluated restrictive hemoglobin transfusion triggers
Data Synthesis and Analysis
ranging from 7 to 10 g/dL and found that restricting
The results were reported as a risk ratio (RR) and risk diftransfusions significantly reduced in-hospital mortality but
ference for dichotomous outcomes, for the restrictive strathad no effect on other clinical outcomes.22 We have
egy compared with the liberal strategy, with the confidence
chosen a different approach to evaluate the available evinterval (CI) set at 95% significance. For the amount of
idence. We now update the meta-analysis through April
blood transfused per patient, the results were reported as a
2013 to include a subsequent trial23 and restrict the primean difference, with 95% CIs for the restrictive compared
mary analysis to those trials with a transfusion trigger of
with the liberal strategy. To test for inter-study heteroge<7 g/dL. Trials that evaluated less restrictive strategies
neity, the chi-square value was calculated; statistical sigwere evaluated in a separate analysis. We also provide a
nificance was indicated by P < .1. The fixed-effects method
systematic review of observational studies that evaluated
was chosen to report the results because minimal heteroclinical outcomes related to other more restrictive transgeneity was seen in most of the analyses.25 When heterofusion strategies.
geneity was noted, the random-effects method was used.26

Data Sources and Study Selection
We conducted a comprehensive search of the MEDLINE
database from 1966 to April 2013 using the terms blood
transfusion and clinical trial, and scanned selected journals
and references of identified articles. Studies of any language
were included in the primary analysis if they were randomized controlled trials that evaluated a restrictive blood
transfusion strategy using a transfusion trigger of <7 g/dL,
compared with a more liberal strategy (detailed study

In a secondary analysis, the pooled results from trials using a less restrictive strategy were evaluated and compared
with the trials in the primary analysis using the test for
interaction.27 The analyses were performed using Review
Manager, Version 5.2, Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane
Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.

Role of Funding Source
The investigators received no funding for the study. No
sponsor had a role in any aspect of the study, including its
design and conduct, data extraction and analysis, and
preparation of the manuscript.