1.
Impact of red blood cell transfusion on oxygen transport and metabolism in patients with sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Arango-Granados MC, Umaña M, Sánchez ÁI, García AF, Granados M, Ospina-Tascón GA
Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva. 2021;33(1):154-166
Abstract
Red blood cell transfusion is thought to improve cell respiration during septic shock. Nevertheless, its acute impact on oxygen transport and metabolism in this condition remains highly debatable. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of red blood cell transfusion on microcirculation and oxygen metabolism in patients with sepsis and septic shock. We conducted a search in the MEDLINE®, Elsevier and Scopus databases. We included studies conducted in adult humans with sepsis and septic shock. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed using the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. A p value < 0.05 was considered significant. Nineteen manuscripts with 428 patients were included in the analysis. Red blood cell transfusions were associated with an increase in the pooled mean venous oxygen saturation of 3.7% (p < 0.001), a decrease in oxygen extraction ratio of -6.98 (p < 0.001) and had no significant effect on the cardiac index (0.02L/minute; p = 0,96). Similar results were obtained in studies including simultaneous measurements of venous oxygen saturation, oxygen extraction ratio, and cardiac index. Red blood cell transfusions led to a significant increase in the proportion of perfused small vessels (2.85%; p = 0.553), while tissue oxygenation parameters revealed a significant increase in the tissue hemoglobin index (1.66; p = 0.018). Individual studies reported significant improvements in tissue oxygenation and sublingual microcirculatory parameters in patients with deranged microcirculation at baseline. Red blood cell transfusions seemed to improve systemic oxygen metabolism with apparent independence from cardiac index variations. Some beneficial effects have been observed for tissue oxygenation and microcirculation parameters, particularly in patients with more severe alterations at baseline. More studies are necessary to evaluate their clinical impact and to individualize transfusion decisions.
2.
Liberal versus restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy in sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
Hirano Y, Miyoshi Y, Kondo Y, Okamoto K, Tanaka H
Critical care (London, England). 2019;23(1):262
Abstract
BACKGROUND We assessed the effect of liberal versus restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy on survival outcome in sepsis or septic shock by systematically reviewing the literature and synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases. We included RCTs that compared mortality between a liberal transfusion strategy with a hemoglobin threshold of 9 or 10 g/dL and a restrictive transfusion strategy with a hemoglobin threshold of 7 g/dL in adults with sepsis or septic shock. Two investigators independently screened citations and conducted data extraction. The primary outcome was 28- or 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were 60- and 90-day mortality, use of life support at 28 days of admission, and number of patients transfused during their intensive care unit stay. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models were used to report pooled odds ratios (ORs). RESULTS A total of 1516 patients from three RCTs were included; 749 were randomly assigned to the liberal transfusion group and 767 to the restrictive strategy group. Within 28-30 days, 273 patients (36.4%) died in the liberal transfusion group, while 278 (36.2%) died in the restrictive transfusion group (pooled OR, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.46). For the primary outcome, heterogeneity was observed among the studies (I(2) = 61.0%, chi(2) = 5.13, p = 0.08). For secondary outcomes, only two RCTs were included. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS We could not show any difference in 28- or 30-day mortality between the liberal and restrictive transfusion strategies in sepsis or septic shock patients by meta-analysis of RCTs. Our results should be interpreted with caution due to the existence of heterogeneity. As sepsis complicates a potentially wide range of underlying diseases, further trials in carefully selected populations are anticipated. TRIAL REGISTRATION This present study was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018108578).
3.
Impact of transfusion on patients with sepsis admitted in intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Dupuis C, Sonneville R, Adrie C, Gros A, Darmon M, Bouadma L, Timsit JF
Annals of Intensive Care. 2017;7((1)):5.
Abstract
Red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) threshold in patients with sepsis remains a matter of controversy. A threshold of 7 g/dL for stabilized patients with sepsis is commonly proposed, although debated. The aim of the study was to compare the benefit and harm of restrictive versus liberal RBCT strategies in order to guide physicians on RBCT strategies in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Four outcomes were assessed: death, nosocomial infection (NI), acute lung injury (ALI) and acute kidney injury (AKI). Studies assessing RBCT strategies or RBCT impact on outcome and including intensive care unit (ICU) patients with sepsis were assessed. Two systematic reviews were achieved: first for the randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and second for the observational studies. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Clinical Trials.gov were analyzed up to March 01, 2015. Der Simonian and Laird random-effects models were used to report pooled odds ratios (ORs). Subgroup analyses and meta-regressions were performed to explore studies heterogeneity. One RCT was finally included. The restrictive RBCT strategy was not associated with harm or benefit compared to liberal strategy. Twelve cohort studies were included, of which nine focused on mortality rate. RBCT was not associated with increased mortality rate (overall pooled OR was 1.10 [0.75, 1.60]; I 2 = 57%, p = 0.03), but was associated with the occurrence of NI (2 studies: pooled OR 1.25 [1.04-1.50]; I 2 = 0%, p = 0.97), the occurrence of ALI (1 study: OR 2.75 [1.22-6.37]; p = 0.016) and the occurrence of AKI (1 study: OR 5.22 [2.1-15.8]; p = 0.001). Because there was only one RCT, the final meta-analyses were only based on the cohort studies. As a result, the safety of a RBCT restrictive strategy was confirmed, although only one study specifically focused on ICU patients with sepsis. Then, RBCT was not associated with increased mortality rate, but was associated with increased in occurrence of NI, ALI and AKI. Nevertheless, the data on RBCT in patients with sepsis are sparse and the high heterogeneity between studies prevents from drawing any definitive conclusions.
4.
Granulocyte transfusions for neonates with confirmed or suspected sepsis and neutropenia
Pammi M, Brocklehurst P
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2011;((10):):CD003956.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Neonates have immature granulopoiesis, which frequently results in neutropenia after sepsis. Neutropaenic septic neonates have a higher mortality than non-neutropenic septic neonates. Therefore, granulocyte transfusion to septic neutropenic neonates may improve outcomes. OBJECTIVES The primary objective was to determine the effect of granulocyte or buffy coat transfusions as adjuncts to antibiotics, after confirmed or suspected sepsis in neutropenic neonates, on all-cause mortality during hospital stay and neurological outcome at >= year of age. Secondary objectives were to determine the effects of granulocyte transfusions on length of hospital stay in survivors to discharge, adverse effects and immunologic outcomes at >= year of age. SEARCH STRATEGY The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL, proceedings of the PAS conferences and ongoing trials at clinicaltrials.gov and clinical-trials.com were searched in July 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA Studies where neutropenic neonates with suspected or confirmed sepsis were randomised or quasi-randomised to granulocyte or buffy coat transfusions at any dose or duration, and reporting any outcome of interest were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Relative risk (RR) and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals using the fixed effects model were reported for dichotomous outcomes. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed. MAIN RESULTS Four trials were eligible for inclusion. Forty-four infants with sepsis and neutropenia were randomised in three trials to granulocyte transfusions or placebo/no transfusion. In another trial, 35 infants with sepsis and neutropenia on antibiotics were randomised to granulocyte transfusion or IVIG.When granulocyte transfusion was compared with placebo or no transfusion, there was no significant difference in 'all-cause mortality' (three trials; typical RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.86; typical RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.21).When granulocyte transfusion was compared with intravenous immunoglobulin (one trial), there was a reduction in 'all-cause mortality' of borderline statistical significance (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.04; RD -0.34, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.09; NNT 2.7, 95% CI 1.6 to 9.1).Pulmonary complications were the only adverse effect reported in the trials that used buffy coat transfusions. None of the trials reported on neurological outcome at one year of age or later, length of hospital stay in survivors to discharge or immunological outcome at one year of age or later. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Currently, there is inconclusive evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to support or refute the routine use of granulocyte transfusions in neutropenic, septic neonates. Researchers are encouraged to conduct adequately powered multi-centre trials of granulocyte transfusions in neutropenic septic neonates.