1.
Use of intravenous immunoglobulin for treatment of neurologic conditions: a systematic review
Fergusson D, Hutton B, Sharma M, Tinmouth A, Wilson K, Cameron DW, Hebert PC
Transfusion. 2005;45((10):):1640-1657.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Given the increasing use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for various neurologic conditions and uncertainty pertaining to its benefits and harms, a systematic review was conducted of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IVIG for all neurologic indications for which there was at least one published trial. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS For this systematic review, a systematic search strategy was applied to MEDLINE (1966-June 2003) and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (June 2003) to identify potentially eligible RCTs comparing IVIG to placebo or an active control. All dosage regimens were considered. Abstracts were excluded, and no restriction was placed on language of publication. Two investigators independently performed data extraction with a standardized form. Measures of effect were calculated for each trial independently, and studies were pooled based on clinical and methodologic judgment as to its appropriateness. Where pooling of trials was inappropriate, a qualitative discussion of findings is provided. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Thirty-seven trials representing 14 conditions were identified. IVIG is more effective than placebo for treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and idiopathic chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy. There is also potential benefit for treatment of multifocal motor neuropathy, myasthenia gravis, dermatomyositis, stiff-person syndrome, and Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether IVIG therapy was more effective than plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome. There was also insufficient evidence regarding paraprotein-associated polyneuropathy. No evidence of benefit was observed for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis or inclusion body myositis.
2.
Is a low transfusion threshold safe in critically ill patients with cardiovascular diseases?
Hebert PC, Yetisir E, Martin C, Blajchman MA, Wells G, Marshall J, Tweeddale M, Pagliarello G, Schweitzer I, Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care Investigators for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group
Critical Care Medicine. 2001;29((2):):227-34.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy with a more liberal strategy in volume-resuscitated critically ill patients with cardiovascular disease. SETTING Twenty-two academic and three community critical care units across Canada. STUDY DESIGN Randomized controlled clinical trial. STUDY POPULATION Three hundred fifty-seven critically ill patients with cardiovascular diseases from the Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care trial who had a hemoglobin concentration of <90 g/L within 72 hrs of admission to the intensive care unit. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to a restrictive strategy to receive allogeneic red blood cell transfusions at a hemoglobin concentration of 70 g/L (and maintained between 70 and 90 g/L) or a liberal strategy to receive red blood cells at 100 g/L (and maintained between 100 and 120 g/L). RESULTS Baseline characteristics in the restrictive (n = 160) and the liberal group (n = 197) were comparable, except for the use of cardiac and anesthetic drugs (p <.02). Average hemoglobin concentrations (85 +/- 6.2 vs. 103 +/- 6.7 g/L; p <.01) and red blood cell units transfused (2.4 +/- 4.1 vs. 5.2 +/- 5.0 red blood cell units; p <.01) were significantly lower in the restrictive compared with the liberal group. Overall, all mortality rates were similar in both study groups, including 30-day (23% vs. 23%; p = 1.00), 60-day, hospital, and intensive care unit rates. Changes in multiple organ dysfunction from baseline scores were significantly less in the restrictive transfusion group overall (0.2 +/- 4.2 vs. 1.3 +/- 4.4; p =.02). In the 257 patients with severe ischemic heart disease, there were no statistically significant differences in all survival measures, but this is the only subgroup where the restrictive group had lower but nonsignificant absolute survival rates compared with the patients in the liberal group. CONCLUSION A restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy generally appears to be safe in most critically ill patients with cardiovascular disease, with the possible exception of patients with acute myocardial infarcts and unstable angina.