Franz AR, Engel C, Bassler D, Rüdiger M, Thome UH, Maier RF, Krägeloh-Mann I, Kron M, Essers J, Bührer C, Rellensmann G, Rossi R, Bittrich HJ, Roll C, Höhn T, Ehrhardt H, Avenarius S, Körner HT, Stein A, Buxmann H, Vochem M, Poets CF; ETTNO Investigators. Effects of Liberal vs Restrictive Transfusion Thresholds on Survival and Neurocognitive Outcomes in Extremely Low-Birth-Weight Infants: The ETTNO Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2020 Aug 11;324(6):560–570. PMID: 32780138. Erin Grace. Neonatal Fellow. Department of Neonatal Medicine, Women's and Children's Hospital, North Adelaide, South Australia. SAHMRI Women and Kids, South Australian Health and Medical Institute, North Adelaide, South Australia. Robinson Research Institute and the Adelaide Medical School, the University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia. Cathie Hilditch. Paediatric Registrar. SAHMRI Women and Kids, South Australian Health and Medical Institute, North Adelaide, South Australia. Robinson Research Institute and the Adelaide Medical School, the University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia. Amy Keir. Consultant Neonatologist. Department of Neonatal Medicine, Women's and Children's Hospital, North Adelaide, South Australia. Healthy Mothers, Babies and Children Theme, South Australian Health and Medical Institute, North Adelaide, South Australia. Robinson Research Institute and the Adelaide Medical School, the University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia. In this European multicentre randomised controlled trial, the Effects of Transfusion Thresholds on Neurocognitive Outcome of Extremely Low birth Weight Infants (ETTNO), 1013 preterm infants with a birthweight less than 1000 grams were included. The study was undertaken across 2011–2014 with longer term follow-up beyond this period.1 At 24 months’ corrected age, rates of the primary outcome of death or neurodevelopmental impairment were similar in the liberal and restrictive threshold groups (44.4% and 42.9%; odds ratio, 1.05). The rates of mortality, cognitive impairment and complications including bronchopulmonary dysplasia and necrotising enterocolitis were similar between groups. To examine the study more closely, randomisation occurred with the first 72 hours of age with the majority of infants randomised at 2.5 days of age. Twenty-five per cent of infants in each group received at least one red blood cell transfusion prior to randomisation. Deferred/delayed cord clamping (DCC) for 30–45 seconds was implemented at each study site with 308/492 (63%) in the liberal group and 319/519 (61%) in the restrictive group receiving DCC. The mean difference in mean haematocrits ranged from 1.5 to 3.4% from the week of randomisation to week 11. Whether this difference is clinically meaningful is worth considering. The authors note that the separation in these haematocrit values, and consequently the potential oxygen-carrying capacity achieved, may be too small to cause a difference in study outcomes.1 The lowest mean haematocrit in the restrictive group was in week 9 at 31.7% (SD 4.6). A comprehensive list of further study limitations is well laid out by the authors. These included potential limited generalisability due to the infants being primarily from a white German population group, the changes in clinical practices that may have occurred since 2011–2014, and the proportion of infants who received a red blood cell transfusion not justified by the study protocol. Risk of bias (ROB) in the study, assessed using the Cochrane ROB tool,2 was deemed low risk overall. The potential for post randomisation confounding exists, with 14% of infants receiving a transfusion not justified by the protocol and 7% did not receive a transfusion when dictated by the protocol. Analysis of the per-protocol population was consistent with the primary analysis findings. Other postrandomisation confounding risks were deemed low as there was minimal loss to follow up with similar numbers between groups. The results of the recently published Transfusion of Prematures (TOP) trial are consistent with this trial. Combining the results will hopefully enable a much anticipated individual patient data meta-analysis.1 Anaemia of prematurity is a term used broadly across the highly variable and complex course of prematurity in relation to red blood cell transfusion practice. It is possible that a difference approach to transfusion in the first days of age requires a transfusion trigger based on optimisation of oxygen kinetics, rather than a threshold per se.4 At this point, however, lower red cell transfusion thresholds compared to more liberal thresholds seem an appropriate clinical approach, especially for those preterm infants 48–72 hours of age or older. https://ebneo.org/transfusion-thresholds-low-birthweight-infants The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Read full abstract