1.
Platelet Transfusion in Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Yanagawa B, Ribeiro R, Lee J, Mazer CD, Cheng D, Martin J, Verma S, Friedrich JO
Ann Thorac Surg. 2020
Abstract
BACKGROUND Blood transfusion is a well-established independent risk factor for mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery but the impact of platelet transfusion is less clear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies comparing outcomes of patients who received platelet transfusion following cardiac surgery. METHODS We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to January 2019 for studies comparing peri-operative outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with and without platelet transfusion. RESULTS There were 9 observational studies reporting on 101,511 patients: 12% with and 88% without platelet transfusion. In unmatched/unadjusted studies, patients who received platelet transfusion were older with greater incidence of renal, peripheral and cerebrovascular disease, myocardial infarction, left ventricular dysfunction, and anemia. They were more likely to have non-elective, combined surgery; pre-operative hemodynamic instability and endocarditis; and more likely to be on clopidogrel preoperatively. Perioperative complications were significantly increased without adjusting for these baseline differences. After pooling only matched/adjusted data, differences were not found in patients who did vs did not receive platelets for operative mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.26, 95%CI:0.69-2.32, p=0.46, 5 studies), stroke (RR 0.94, 95%CI:0.62-1.45, p=0.79, 5 studies), myocardial infarction (RR1.29, 95%CI:0.95-1.77, p=0.11, 3 studies), reoperation for bleeding (RR1.20, 95%CI:0.46-3.18, p=0.71, 3 studies), infection (RR1.02, 95%CI:0.86-1.20, p=0.85, 6 studies), and peri-operative dialysis (RR0.91, 95%CI:0.63-1.32, p=0.62, 3 studies). CONCLUSIONS After accounting for baseline differences, platelet transfusion was not linked with perioperative complications in cardiac surgery patients. Given the small number of observational studies, these findings should be considered hypothesis generating.
2.
Should transfusion trigger thresholds differ for critical care versus perioperative patients? A meta-analysis of randomized trials
Chong MA, Krishnan R, Cheng D, Martin J
Critical Care Medicine. 2017;46((2):):252-263
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To address the significant uncertainty as to whether transfusion thresholds for critical care versus surgical patients should differ. DESIGN Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. SETTING Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library searches were performed up to 15 June 2016. PATIENTS Trials had to enroll adult surgical or critically ill patients for inclusion. INTERVENTIONS Studies had to compare a liberal versus restrictive threshold for the transfusion of allogeneic packed RBCs. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality, sub-grouped by surgical and critical care patients. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, allogeneic blood exposure, and length of stay. Odds ratios and weighted mean differences were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. To assess whether subgroups were significantly different, tests for subgroup interaction were used. Subgroup analysis by trials enrolling critically ill versus surgical patients was performed. Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials (10,797 patients) were included. In critical care patients, restrictive transfusion resulted in significantly reduced 30-day mortality compared with liberal transfusion (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.97). In surgical patients, a restrictive transfusion strategy led to the opposite direction of effect for mortality (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.94-1.82). The subgroup interaction test was significant (p = 0.04), suggesting that the effect of restrictive transfusion on mortality is statistically different for critical care (decreased risk) versus surgical patients (potentially increased risk or no difference). Regarding secondary outcomes, for critically ill patients, a restrictive strategy resulted in reduced risk of stroke/transient ischemic attack, packed RBC exposure, transfusion reactions, and hospital length of stay. In surgical patients, restrictive transfusion resulted in reduced packed RBC exposure. CONCLUSIONS The safety of restrictive transfusion strategies likely differs for critically ill patients versus perioperative patients. Further trials investigating transfusion strategies in the perioperative setting are necessary.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal.