Liberal Red Cell Transfusion Strategy Research Articles

Restrictive vs. Liberal Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategy in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: Anemia is frequent in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and the optimal red blood cell transfusion strategy for AMI patients with anemia is still controversial. We aimed to compare the efficacy of restrictive and liberal red cell transfusion strategies in AMI patients with anemia.Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov, from their inception until March 2021. Studies designed to compare the efficacy between restrictive and liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies in patients with AMI were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, including overall mortality, in-hospital or follow-up mortality. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were presented and pooled by random-effects models.Results: The search yielded a total of 6,630 participants in six studies. A total of 2,008 patients received restrictive red blood cell transfusion while 4,622 patients were given liberal red blood cell transfusion. No difference was found in overall mortality and follow-up mortality between restrictive and liberal transfusion groups (RR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.82–1.40, P = 0.62; RR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.56–1.42, P = 0.62). However, restrictive transfusion tended to have a higher risk of in-hospital mortality compared with liberal transfusion (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.00–1.50, P = 0.05). No secondary outcomes, including follow-up reinfarction, stroke, and acute heart failure, differed significantly between the two groups. In addition, subgroup analysis showed no differences in overall mortality between the two groups based on sample size and design.Conclusion: Restrictive and liberal red blood cell transfusion have a similar effect on overall mortality and follow-up mortality in AMI patients with anemia. However, restrictive transfusion tended to have a higher risk of in-hospital mortality compared with liberal transfusion. The findings suggest that transfusion strategy should be further evaluated in future studies.

BLOOD TRANSFUSION REQUIREMENTS IN CARDIAC SURGERY

Background: The effect of restrictive blood transfusion in comparison to liberal red cell transfusion strategy on clinical outcome in cardiac surgery remains undetermined. Objectives: The aim of this work is to evaluate the restrictive blood transfusion strategy versus the liberal strategy in open heart surgery in terms of vital organ functions (heart, brain, lung, and kidney) and mortality. Patients and Methods: After approval of Institutional ethical committee and obtaining written informed consent from the patient, in this multicenter randomized prospective study, we assigned 100 adult cardiac surgery patients with Euro score I of 6 or more to a restrictive red cell transfusion trigger (transfuse if hemoglobin level was <7.5g/dl starting from the induction of anesthesia) and liberal red cell transfusion trigger (transfuse if hemoglobin level was <9.5g/dl in the operative room or intensive care unit or <8.5g/dl in the ward). The primary outcome was composite of any cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new onset renal failure with dialysis by discharge from hospital or by day28 whichever came first. Results: There was a significant decrease in RBC transfusion in the restrictive group intraoperative, in the postoperative day (1), and in the ward stay. There was significantly less fresh frozen plasma transfused in the restrictive group during the ward stay only. There were a significant decrease in ventilator time, ICU stay, chest tube drainage, and rapid AF occurrence in the restrictive. Conclusion: The restrictive transfusion strategy showed efficacy and safety in decreasing transfusion requirements in cardiac surgery, thus decreasing morbidities and mortality associated with blood transfusion. It also showed cost effectiveness.

Six-Month Outcomes after Restrictive or Liberal Transfusion for Cardiac Surgery

BackgroundWe reported previously that, in patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were at moderate-to-high risk for death, a restrictive transfusion strategy was noninferior to a liberal strategy with respect to the composite outcome of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new-onset renal failure with dialysis by hospital discharge or 28 days after surgery, whichever came first. We now report the clinical outcomes at 6 months after surgery.MethodsWe randomly assigned 5243 adults undergoing cardiac surgery to a restrictive red-cell transfusion strategy (transfusion if the hemoglobin concentration was <7.5 g per deciliter intraoperatively or postoperatively) or a liberal red-cell transfusion strategy (transfusion if the hemoglobin concentration was <9.5 g per deciliter intraoperatively or postoperatively when the patient was in the intensive care unit [ICU] or was <8.5 g per deciliter when the patient was in the non-ICU ward). The primary composite outcome was death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new-onset renal failure with dialysis occurring within 6 months after the initial surgery. An expanded secondary composite outcome included all the components of the primary outcome as well as emergency department visit, hospital readmission, or coronary revascularization occurring within 6 months after the index surgery. The secondary outcomes included the individual components of the two composite outcomes.ResultsAt 6 months after surgery, the primary composite outcome had occurred in 402 of 2317 patients (17.4%) in the restrictive-threshold group and in 402 of 2347 patients (17.1%) in the liberal-threshold group (absolute risk difference before rounding, 0.22 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.95 to 2.39; odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.18; P=0.006 for noninferiority). Mortality was 6.2% in the restrictive-threshold group and 6.4% in the liberal-threshold group (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.21). There were no significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes.ConclusionsIn patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were at moderate-to-high risk for death, a restrictive strategy for red-cell transfusion was noninferior to a liberal strategy with respect to the composite outcome of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new-onset renal failure with dialysis at 6 months after surgery. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; TRICS III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02042898.)

Effect of restrictive versus liberal red cell transfusion strategies on haemostasis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Red cells play a key role in normal haemostasis in vitro but their importance clinically is less clear. The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess if correction of anaemia by transfusing red cells at a high haemoglobin threshold (liberal transfusion) is superior to transfusion at a lower haemoglobin threshold (restrictive transfusion) for reducing the risk of bleeding or thrombotic events. We searched for randomised controlled trials in any clinical setting that compared two red cell transfusion thresholds and investigated the risk of bleeding. We searched for studies published up to October 19, 2016 in The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, and the Transfusion Evidence Library and ISI Web of Science. Relative risks (RR) or Peto Odds Ratios (pOR) were pooled using a random-effect model. Nineteen randomised trials with 9852 participants were eligible for inclusion in this review. Overall there was no difference in the risk of any bleeding between transfusion strategies (RR 0.91, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.74 to 1.12). The risk of severe or life-threatening bleeding was lower with a restrictive strategy (RR 0.75, 95 % CI 0.57 to 0.99). There was no difference in the risk of thrombotic events (RR 0.83, 95 % CI 0.61 to 1.13). The risk of any bleeding was not reduced with liberal transfusion and there was no overall difference in the risk of thrombotic events. Data from the included trials do not support aiming for a high haemoglobin threshold to improve haemostasis. PROSPERO registration number CRD42016035519.

Restrictive and liberal red cell transfusion strategies in adult patients: reconciling clinical data with best practice.

Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion guidelines correctly promote a general restrictive transfusion approach for anemic hospitalized patients. Such recommendations have been derived from evaluation of specific patient populations, and it is important to recognize that engaging a strict guideline approach has the potential to incur harm if the clinician fails to provide a comprehensive review of the patient’s physiological status in determining the benefit and risks of transfusion. We reviewed the data in support of a restrictive or a more liberal RBC transfusion practice, and examined the quality of the datasets and manner of their interpretation to provide better context by which a physician can make a sound decision regarding RBC transfusion therapy. Reviewed studies included PubMed-cited (1974 to 2013) prospective randomized clinical trials, prospective subset analyses of randomized studies, nonrandomized controlled trials, observational case series, consecutive and nonconsecutive case series, and review articles. Prospective randomized clinical trials were acknowledged and emphasized as the best-quality evidence. The results of the analysis support that restrictive RBC transfusion practices appear safe in the hospitalized populations studied, although patients with acute coronary syndromes, traumatic brain injury and patients at risk for brain or spinal cord ischemia were not well represented in the reviewed studies. The lack of quality data regarding the purported adverse effects of RBC transfusion at best suggests that restrictive strategies are no worse than liberal strategies under the studied protocol conditions, and RBC transfusion therapy in the majority of instances represents a marker for greater severity of illness. The conclusion is that in the majority of clinical settings a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy is cost-effective, reduces the risk of adverse events specific to transfusion, and introduces no harm. In anemic patients with ongoing hemorrhage, with risk of significant bleeding, or with concurrent ischemic brain, spinal cord, or myocardium, the optimal hemoglobin transfusion trigger remains unknown. Broad-based adherence to guideline approaches of therapy must respect the individual patient condition as interpreted by comprehensive clinical review.

Comparison of a restrictive versus liberal red cell transfusion policy for patients with myelodysplasia, aplastic anaemia, and other congenital bone marrow failure disorders.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the efficacy and safety of a restrictive versus liberal red cell transfusion strategy for patients with long-term bone marrow failure. These include myelodysplasia, acquired aplastic anaemia, and other inherited bone marrow failure disorders.

Silent myocardial ischaemia and haemoglobin concentration: a randomized controlled trial of transfusion strategy in lower limb arthroplasty

Red cell transfusion is commonly used in orthopaedic surgery. Evidence suggests that a restrictive transfusion strategy may be safe for most patients. However, concern has been raised over the risks of anaemia in those with ischaemic cardiac disease. Perioperative silent myocardial ischaemia (SMI) has a relatively high incidence in the elderly population undergoing elective surgery. This study used Holter monitoring to compare the effect of a restrictive and a liberal red cell transfusion strategy on the incidence of SMI in patients without signs or symptoms of ischaemic heart disease who were undergoing lower limb arthroplasty. We performed a multicentre, controlled trial in which 260 patients undergoing elective hip and knee replacement surgery were enrolled and randomized to transfusion triggers that were either restrictive (8 g/dl) or liberal (10 g/dl). Participants were monitored with continuous ambulatory electrocardiogram (ECG) (Holter monitoring), preoperatively for 12 h and postoperatively for 72 h. The tapes were analysed for new ischaemia by technicians blinded to treatment. The total ischaemia time in minutes was divided by the recording time in hours and an ischaemic load in min/h was calculated. Haemoglobin levels were measured preoperatively, postoperatively in the recovery room, and on days one, three and five after surgery. The mean postoperative haemoglobin concentration was 9.87 g/dl in the restrictive group and 11.09 g/dl in the liberal group. In the restrictive group, 34% were transfused a total of 89 red cell units, and in the liberal group 43% were given a total of 119 red cell units. A postoperative episode of silent ischaemia was experienced by 21/109 (19%) patients in the restrictive group and by 26/109 (24%) patients in the liberal group [mean difference -4.6%; 95% confidence interval (CI): -15.5% to 6%, P = 0.41). There was no significant difference (P = 0.53) between the overall ischaemic load in the restrictive group (median 0 min/h, range 0-4.18) and the liberal group (median 0 min/h, range 0-19.48). In those patients who did experience postoperative SMI, the mean ischaemic load was 0.48 min/h in the restrictive group and 1.51 min/h in the liberal group (ratio 0.32, 95% CI: 0.14-0.76, P = 0.011). The median postoperative length of hospital stay in the restrictive group was 7.3 days [range 5-11; interquartile range (IQR) 6-8] compared with 7.5 days (range 5-13; IQR 7-8) in the liberal group. The numbers were not large enough to conclude equivalence. In patients without preoperative evidence of myocardial ischaemia undergoing elective hip and knee replacement surgery, a restrictive transfusion strategy seems unlikely to be associated with an increased incidence of SMI. A proportion of these patients experience moderate SMI, regardless of the transfusion trigger. Use of a restrictive transfusion strategy did not increase length of hospital stay, and use of this strategy would lead to a significant reduction in red cell transfusion in orthopaedic surgery. Our data did not indicate any potential for harm in employing such a strategy in patients with no prior evidence of cardiac ischaemia who were undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery.