1.
Systematic reviews of guidelines and studies for single versus multiple unit transfusion strategies
Shih AW, Liu A, Elsharawi R, Crowther MA, Cook RJ, Heddle NM
Transfusion. 2018;58((12):):2841-2860.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Recent recommendations indicate that one red blood cell (RBC) unit should be transfused at a time, with reassessment after each transfusion, which may be extrapolated from literature supporting restrictive transfusion triggers rather than specific evidence. Therefore, two systematic reviews were performed to identify the following: 1) RBC transfusion guidelines and review articles to determine if single- or multiple-unit transfusion strategies are recommended and 2) studies comparing strategies for evidence of benefit. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and Trip Database were searched (inception to June 2017). For the first review, the proportion of articles with single/multiple-unit recommendations was assessed and stratified by article type. For the second review, the primary outcome was RBC use. Secondary outcomes included proportion of transfusion episodes using a single-unit strategy, length of stay, and mortality. RESULTS The first review identified 145 articles for analysis, with 51 transfusion guidelines. Only 14 guidelines (27%) made a recommendation, with most (93%) recommending single-unit transfusions. The second review identified seven cohort studies comparing preimplementation and postimplementation of a policy encouraging single-unit transfusion strategies. Meta-analysis could not be performed for outcomes given inconsistencies in reporting. RBC use decreased by approximately 10 to 41% across studies. CONCLUSION Transfusion guidelines lack recommendations to transfuse to a single-unit strategy. Mostly retrospective cohort studies (six of seven) are inconsistent in outcome reporting but suggest improved RBC use. Further high-quality studies could identify the benefits of a single-unit transfusion strategy, determine the applicability to different clinical settings, and inform future practice guidelines.
2.
Avoiding transfusions in children undergoing cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized trials of aprotinin
Arnold DM, Fergusson DA, Chan AK, Cook RJ, Fraser GA, Lim W, Blajchman MA, Cook DJ
Anesthesia and Analgesia. 2006;102((3):):731-737.
3.
The use of aprotinin to reduce transfusion requirements in children undergoing cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis
Arnold DM, Fergusson DA, Chan AK, Cook RJ, Fraser GA, Lim W,, et al.,
Blood. 2004;104((11):):742a.. Abstract No. 2718.
4.
Methodologic issues in the use of bleeding as an outcome in transfusion medicine studies
Heddle NM, Cook RJ, Webert KE, Sigouin C, Rebulla P
Transfusion. 2003;43((6):):742-752.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prophylactic platelet transfusions are given to thrombocytopenic patients to prevent bleeding. The benefit of platelet transfusions has frequently been assessed by measuring the count increment; however, more recently, an assessment of bleeding has been used because it is a more clinically relevant outcome measure. The purpose of this study was to identify platelet transfusion trigger studies that used bleeding as an outcome measure, compare and contrast methods used to document bleeding and analyze bleeding outcomes, and identify and discuss methodologic issues to consider when bleeding is used as a study outcome. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS A systematic search to identify platelet transfusion trigger studies was performed. Relevant articles were reviewed to identify how bleeding data was captured and analyzed, and methodologic considerations were identified. RESULTS Seven articles meeting the predefined entry criteria were identified. Methods used to document bleeding included chart review and clinical assessment. The frequency of assessment and the type of personnel performing the assessment were variable. Four approaches to analysis were identified: descriptive; comparison of the proportions of patients having at least one bleed; comparison of patient days with bleeding expressed as a proportion of the total days at risk of bleeding; and time-to-event (first bleed) analysis. CONCLUSION Methodologic issues for consideration when designing a clinical study with bleeding as the outcome measure included approaches to minimize bias in the documentation and classification of bleeding and selection of an analysis approach that is appropriate to the question being asked. The need for development of a valid and reliable bleeding scale was also identified.