Restrictive versus liberal strategy for red blood-cell transfusion in hip fracture patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
BACKGROUND Most clinical guidelines recommend a restrictive red-blood-cell (RBC) transfusion threshold. However, indications for transfusion in patients with a hip fracture have not been definitively evaluated or remain controversial. We compared the pros and cons of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. METHODS Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies (RCSs) to investigate the effects of a restrictive strategy versus its liberal counterpart in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. The main clinical outcomes included delirium, mortality, infections, cardiogenic complications, thromboembolic events, cerebrovascular accidents, and length of hospital stay. The meta-analysis program of the Cochrane Collaboration (RevMan version 5.3.0) was used for data analysis. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by both Cochran chi-squared test (Q test) and I test. Both Begg and Egger tests were used to assess potential publication bias. RESULTS We identified 7 eligible RCTs and 2 eligible RCSs, involving 3,575 patients in total. In patients undergoing hip fracture surgery, we found no differences in frequency of delirium, mortality, the incidence rates of all infections, pneumonia, wound infection, all cardiovascular events, congestive heart failure, thromboembolic events or length of hospital stay between restrictive and liberal thresholds for RBC transfusion (P >.05). However, we found that the use of restrictive transfusion thresholds is associated with higher rates of acute coronary syndrome (P <.05) while liberal transfusion thresholds increase the risk of cerebrovascular accidents (P <.05). CONCLUSION In patients undergoing hip fracture surgery, clinicians should evaluate the patient's condition in detail and adopt different transfusion strategies according to the patient's specific situation rather than merely using a certain transfusion strategy.
Mortality, Morbidity and Related Outcomes Following Perioperative Blood Transfusion in Patients with Major Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review
Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie. 2018;45((5):):355-367.
Background: Benefits and risks of liberal and restrictive transfusion regimens are under on-going controversial discussion. This systematic review aimed at assessing both regimens in terms of pre-defined outcomes with special focus on patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery. Methods: We performed a literature search for mortality, morbidity and related outcomes following peri-operative blood transfusion in patients with major orthopaedic surgery in electronic databases. Combined outcome measure estimates were calculated within the scope of meta-analyses including randomised clinical trials comparing restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion regimens (e.g. MH risk ratio, Peto odds ratio). Results: A total of 880 publications were identified 15 of which were finally included (8 randomised clinical trials (RCTs) with 3,693 patients and 6 observational studies with 4,244,112 patients). Regarding RCTs, no significant differences were detected between the transfusion regimes for all primary outcomes (30-day mortality, thromboembolic events, stroke/transitory ischaemic attack, myocardial infarction, wound infection and pneumonia) and a secondary outcome (length of hospital stay), whereas there was a significantly reduced risk of receiving at least one red blood concentrate under a restrictive regimen. Conclusion: The results of this systematic review do not suggest an increased risk associated with either a restrictive or a liberal transfusion regimen in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery.
Blood transfusion and postoperative infection in spine surgery: A systematic review
Global Spine Journal. 2018;8((2)):198-207.
Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: Allogeneic blood transfusion-related immunomodulation may relatively suppress the immune system, heightening the risk of infection following spine surgery. This systematic review seeks to determine whether allogeneic blood transfusion increases the risk of postoperative infection and whether there are any factors that modify this association. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and reference lists from included studies were searched from inception to April 20, 2017 to identify studies examining the risk of infection following allogeneic blood transfusion in adult patients receiving surgery for degenerative spine disease. Results: Eleven retrospective cohort or case-control studies, involving 8428 transfusion patients and 43 242 nontransfusion patients, were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. Regarding surgical site infection (SSI), the results were mixed with roughly half reporting a significant association. There was an association between allogeneic transfusion and urinary tract infection (UTI) and any infection, but not respiratory tract infection. There was no statistical modifying effect of lumbar versus thoracic surgery on the association of allogeneic transfusion and SSI, though subgroup analyses in 3 of 4 studies reported a statistical association between transfusion and postoperative infections, including SSI, UTI, and any infection within the lumbar spine. Conclusions: This systematic review failed to find a consistent association between allogeneic transfusion and postoperative infection in spine surgery patients. However, these studies were all retrospective with a high or moderately high risk of bias. To properly examine this association an observational prospective study of sufficient power, estimated as 2400 patients, is required.
Restrictive versus liberal strategy for red blood-cell transfusion: A systematic review and meta-analysis in orthopaedic patients
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume. 2018;100((8)):686-695.
BACKGROUND Current guidelines recommend restrictive criteria for red blood-cell transfusion in most clinical settings. However, patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery may require distinct transfusion criteria since benefits and potential harm often vary considerably based on patient characteristics and surgical procedures. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of restrictive transfusion in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery, especially in important subgroups. METHODS Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials investigating restrictive (mostly a hemoglobin level of 8.0 g/dL or symptomatic anemia) versus liberal (mostly a hemoglobin level of 10.0 g/dL) transfusion in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. For the primary outcome of cardiovascular events, we performed random-effects meta-analyses to synthesize the evidence and to assess the effects in different subgroups according to patient characteristics (with versus without preexisting cardiovascular disease) and surgical procedures (hip fracture surgery versus elective arthroplasty). RESULTS Ten trials involving 3,968 participants who underwent hip or knee surgery were included. Mean participant age ranged from 68.7 to 86.9 years. Compared with liberal transfusion, restrictive transfusion increased the risk of cardiovascular events (8 trials; 3,618 participants; relative risk [RR], 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16 to 1.98; p = 0.003; with no heterogeneity across all trials), irrespective of preexisting cardiovascular disease (pinteraction = 0.63). In a subgroup analysis, the increase was observed in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery (RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.10; p = 0.02), but did not reach significance in those undergoing elective arthroplasty (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.44; p = 0.07). To minimize the bias caused by variations in transfusion threshold, we conducted an analysis that only included trials using 8.0 g/dL hemoglobin or symptomatic anemia as the threshold for restrictive transfusion and obtained identical results (6 trials; 2,872 participants; RR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.09 to 2.08; p = 0.01; I = 0%). The 2 arms did not differ with respect to the rates of all infections, 30-day mortality, thromboembolic events, wound infection, pulmonary infection (mainly pneumonia), and cerebrovascular accidents (mainly stroke). CONCLUSIONS In patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery, when compared with liberal transfusion, restrictive transfusion increases the risk of cardiovascular events irrespective of preexisting cardiovascular disease. Importantly, the increased risk was observed in patients undergoing hip fracture surgery but did not reach significance in those undergoing elective arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies for red blood cell transfusion after hip or knee surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
BACKGROUND Red blood cell (RBC) transfusions are commonly used in surgical patients, but accompanied by many risks such as metabolic derangement, and allergic and febrile reactions. Indications for transfusion in patients after hip or knee surgery have not been definitively evaluated and remain controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the benefits and harms of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies in patients after hip or knee surgery. METHODS The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant studies through September 2015. The main clinical outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included 30-day mortality, infection rate, cardiogenic complications, and length of hospital stay. The meta-analysis program of the Cochrane Collaboration (RevMan version 5.3.0) was used for data analysis. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by both Cochran chi-squared test (Q test) and I test. Begg and Egger test were used to assess potential publication bias. RESULTS We identified 10 eligible RCTs, involving 3788 patients in total. In patients undergoing hip or knee surgery, we found no differences in mortality, or the incidence rates of pneumonia, wound infection, myocardial infarction, or congestive heart failure, between restrictive and liberal thresholds for RBC transfusion (P > .05). CONCLUSION Restrictive transfusion has no advantage over the liberal strategy. However, considerably less patients received blood transfusion via the restrictive strategy than with the liberal counterpart. Due to variations in the included studies, additional larger scale and well-designed studies are required to validate these conclusions.
Transfusion thresholds for major orthopedic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2017;32((12):):3815-3821
BACKGROUND More than a million surgeries are performed annually in the United States for hip or knee arthroplasty or hip fracture stabilization. One-fifth of these patients have blood transfusions during their hospital stay. Increases in transfusion rates have caused concern about increased adverse events from unnecessary transfusions. METHODS We systematically reviewed randomized trials examining the effect of restrictive vs liberal transfusion thresholds on patients having major orthopedic surgery. Study results were meta-analyzed with a random-effects model and heterogeneity was tested with the I2 statistic. Study risk of bias was assessed using a modified Jadad scale and evidence strength was measured using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system. RESULTS A total of 504 published articles were screened, and 15 met inclusion criteria. The articles described 9 randomized trials, most comparing transfusion thresholds of 8 vs 10 g/dL hemoglobin. All involved hip or knee arthroplasty and/or hip fracture patients. Moderate-strength evidence suggested a reduction in need for transfusion (relative risk, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.71; I2 = 95%) and mean number of units transfused (-0.95 units, 95% CI, -1.48 to -0.41, I2 = 98%). There was a possible reduction in overall infections with more restrictive transfusion thresholds, although the result was not statistically significant (relative risk, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.47-1.06; I2 = 54%). Moderate-strength evidence suggested no differences in other clinical outcomes between the groups. Limitations included incomplete blinding, inconsistency, and imprecision. CONCLUSION Moderate-strength evidence suggests that restrictive transfusion practices reduce utilization of transfusions and may decrease infections without increasing adverse outcomes in major orthopedic surgery.
Allogeneic blood transfusion is a significant risk factor for surgical-site infection following total hip and knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis
The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2016;32((1):):320-325
BACKGROUND Blood loss occurs significantly more frequently during total hip and knee arthroplasty than among any other type of orthopedic operation, which can sometimes lead to requiring a blood transfusion. Although allogeneic blood transfusion has been identified as a risk factor for postoperative surgical-site infection following arthroplasty, results are inconclusive. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic meta-analysis to investigate whether having an allogeneic blood transfusion significantly increases the risk for surgical-site infection, particularly after total hip and knee arthroplasty. METHODS We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using random-effect models. Using an electronic database search, we selected 6 studies that included data on 21,770 patients and among these studies compared the postoperative infection rate between an allogeneic blood-transfusion exposure group and a nonexposure group. We calculated the pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the groups. RESULTS The prevalences of surgical-site infections in our pooled analyses were 2.88% and 1.74% for the transfusion and nontransfusion groups, respectively. The allogeneic blood transfusion group had a significantly higher frequency of surgical-site infections based on pooled analysis using a random-effect model (pooled odds ratio = 1.71, 95% confidence interval: 1.23-2.40, P = .002). CONCLUSION Allogeneic blood transfusion is a significant risk factor for increasing the surgical-site infection rate after total hip and knee arthroplasty.
Red blood cell transfusion for people undergoing hip fracture surgery
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015;((4))
BACKGROUND The incidence of hip fracture is increasing and it is more common with increasing age. Surgery is used for almost all hip fractures. Blood loss occurs as a consequence of both the fracture and the surgery and thus red blood cell transfusion is frequently used. However, red blood cell transfusion is not without risks. Therefore, it is important to identify the evidence for the effective and safe use of red blood cell transfusion in people with hip fracture. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of red blood cell transfusion in people undergoing surgery for hip fracture. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (31 October 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (January 1946 to 20 November 2014), EMBASE (January 1974 to 20 November 2014), CINAHL (January 1982 to 20 November 2014), British Nursing Index Database (January 1992 to 20 November 2014), the Systematic Review Initiative's Transfusion Evidence Library, PubMed for e-publications, various other databases and ongoing trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials comparing red blood cell transfusion versus no transfusion or an alternative to transfusion, different transfusion protocols or different transfusion thresholds in people undergoing surgery for hip fracture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Three review authors independently assessed each study's risk of bias and extracted data using a study-specific form. We pooled data where there was homogeneity in the trial comparisons and the timing of outcome measurement. We used GRADE criteria to assess the quality (low, moderate or high) of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS We included six trials (2722 participants): all compared two thresholds for red blood cell transfusion: a 'liberal' strategy to maintain a haemoglobin concentration of usually 10 g/dL versus a more 'restrictive' strategy based on symptoms of anaemia or a lower haemoglobin concentration, usually 8 g/dL. The exact nature of the transfusion interventions, types of surgery and participants varied between trials. The mean age of participants ranged from 81 to 87 years and approximately 24% of participants were men. The largest trial enrolled 2016 participants, over 60% of whom had a history of cardiovascular disease. The percentage of participants receiving a red blood cell transfusion ranged from 74% to 100% in the liberal transfusion threshold group and from 11% to 45% in the restrictive transfusion threshold group. There were no results available for the smallest trial (18 participants). All studies were at some risk of bias, in particular performance bias relating to the absence of blinding of personnel. We judged the evidence for all outcomes, except myocardial infarction, was low quality reflecting risk of bias primarily from imbalances in protocol violations in the largest trial and imprecision, often because of insufficient events. Thus, further research is likely to have an important impact on these results.There was no evidence of a difference between a liberal versus restricted threshold transfusion in mortality, at 30 days post hip fracture surgery (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.26; five trials; 2683 participants; low quality evidence) or at 60 days post surgery (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.44; three trials; 2283 participants; low quality evidence). Assuming an illustrative baseline risk of 50 deaths per 1000 participants in the restricted threshold group at 30 days, these data equate to four fewer (95% CI 17 fewer to 14 more) deaths per 1000 in the liberal threshold group at 30 days.There was no evidence of a difference between a liberal versus restricted threshold transfusion in functional recovery at 60 days, assessed in terms of the inability to walk 10 feet (3 m) without human assistance (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; two trials; 2083 participants; low quality evidence).There was low quality evidence of no difference betwe
Restrictive blood transfusion strategies and associated infection in orthopedic patients: a meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials
Scientific Reports.. 2015;5:13421.
This study sought to evaluate whether restrictive blood transfusion strategies are associated with a risk of infection in orthopedic patients by conducting a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs with restrictive versus liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategies were identified by searching Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from their inception to December 2014. Eight RCTs with infections as outcomes were included in the final analysis. According to the Jadad scale, all studies were considered to be of high quality. The pooled risk ratio [RR] for the association between transfusion strategy and infection was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.47-0.91; p=0.012), and the number of patients needed to treat to avoid an infection using a restrictive transfusion strategy was 62. No heterogeneity was observed. The sensitivity analysis indicated unstable results, and no significant publication bias was observed. This meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrates that restrictive transfusion strategies in orthopedic patients result in a significant reduction in infections compared with more liberal strategies.