0
selected
-
1.
Restrictive vs. Liberal Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategy in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Zhang Y, Xu Z, Huang Y, Ye Q, Xie N, Zeng L, Lian X, Dai Y, Chen J, He P, et al
Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine. 2021;8:736163
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
Objective: Anemia is frequent in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and the optimal red blood cell transfusion strategy for AMI patients with anemia is still controversial. We aimed to compare the efficacy of restrictive and liberal red cell transfusion strategies in AMI patients with anemia. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov, from their inception until March 2021. Studies designed to compare the efficacy between restrictive and liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies in patients with AMI were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, including overall mortality, in-hospital or follow-up mortality. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were presented and pooled by random-effects models. Results: The search yielded a total of 6,630 participants in six studies. A total of 2,008 patients received restrictive red blood cell transfusion while 4,622 patients were given liberal red blood cell transfusion. No difference was found in overall mortality and follow-up mortality between restrictive and liberal transfusion groups (RR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.82-1.40, P = 0.62; RR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.56-1.42, P = 0.62). However, restrictive transfusion tended to have a higher risk of in-hospital mortality compared with liberal transfusion (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.00-1.50, P = 0.05). No secondary outcomes, including follow-up reinfarction, stroke, and acute heart failure, differed significantly between the two groups. In addition, subgroup analysis showed no differences in overall mortality between the two groups based on sample size and design. Conclusion: Restrictive and liberal red blood cell transfusion have a similar effect on overall mortality and follow-up mortality in AMI patients with anemia. However, restrictive transfusion tended to have a higher risk of in-hospital mortality compared with liberal transfusion. The findings suggest that transfusion strategy should be further evaluated in future studies.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with acute myocardial infarction and anaemia (6 studies, n= 6,630).
Intervention
Restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy (n= 2,008).
Comparison
Liberal red blood cell transfusion strategy (n= 4,622).
Outcome
No difference was found in overall mortality and follow-up mortality between restrictive and liberal transfusion groups (RR= 1.07; 95% CI [0.82, 1.40]; RR= 0.89; 95% CI [0.56, 1.42]). However, restrictive transfusion tended to have a higher risk of in-hospital mortality compared with liberal transfusion (RR= 1.22; 95% CI [1.00, 1.50]). No secondary outcomes, including follow-up reinfarction, stroke, and acute heart failure, differed significantly between the two groups. In addition, subgroup analysis showed no differences in overall mortality between the two groups based on sample size and design.
-
2.
Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Time to Clinical Improvement in Patients With Severe and Life-threatening COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Li L, Zhang W, Hu Y, Tong X, Zheng S, Yang J, Kong Y, Ren L, Wei Q, Mei H, et al
Jama. 2020
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Importance: Convalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but further data from randomized clinical trials are needed. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed in 7 medical centers in Wuhan, China, from February 14, 2020, to April 1, 2020, with final follow-up April 28, 2020. The trial included 103 participants with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 that was severe (respiratory distress and/or hypoxemia) or life-threatening (shock, organ failure, or requiring mechanical ventilation). The trial was terminated early after 103 of a planned 200 patients were enrolled. Intervention: Convalescent plasma in addition to standard treatment (n = 52) vs standard treatment alone (control) (n = 51), stratified by disease severity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was time to clinical improvement within 28 days, defined as patient discharged alive or reduction of 2 points on a 6-point disease severity scale (ranging from 1 [discharge] to 6 [death]). Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to discharge, and the rate of viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results turned from positive at baseline to negative at up to 72 hours. Results: Of 103 patients who were randomized (median age, 70 years; 60 [58.3%] male), 101 (98.1%) completed the trial. Clinical improvement occurred within 28 days in 51.9% (27/52) of the convalescent plasma group vs 43.1% (22/51) in the control group (difference, 8.8% [95% CI, -10.4% to 28.0%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 0.79-2.49]; P = .26). Among those with severe disease, the primary outcome occurred in 91.3% (21/23) of the convalescent plasma group vs 68.2% (15/22) of the control group (HR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.07-4.32]; P = .03); among those with life-threatening disease the primary outcome occurred in 20.7% (6/29) of the convalescent plasma group vs 24.1% (7/29) of the control group (HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.30-2.63]; P = .83) (P for interaction = .17). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (15.7% vs 24.0%; OR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.29-1.46]; P = .30) or time from randomization to discharge (51.0% vs 36.0% discharged by day 28; HR, 1.61 [95% CI, 0.88-2.93]; P = .12). Convalescent plasma treatment was associated with a negative conversion rate of viral PCR at 72 hours in 87.2% of the convalescent plasma group vs 37.5% of the control group (OR, 11.39 [95% CI, 3.91-33.18]; P < .001). Two patients in the convalescent plasma group experienced adverse events within hours after transfusion that improved with supportive care. Conclusion and Relevance: Among patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, convalescent plasma therapy added to standard treatment, compared with standard treatment alone, did not result in a statistically significant improvement in time to clinical improvement within 28 days. Interpretation is limited by early termination of the trial, which may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000029757.
-
3.
Effect of Convalescent Plasma Therapy on Time to Clinical Improvement in Patients With Severe and Life-threatening COVID-19
Li L, Zhang W, Hu Y, Tong X, Zheng S, Yang J, Kong Y, Ren L, Wei Q, Mei H, et al
Jama. 2020
Abstract
ImportanceConvalescent plasma is a potential therapeutic option for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but further data from randomized clinical trials are needed ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of convalescent plasma therapy for patients with COVID-19 Design, Setting, and ParticipantsOpen-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed in 7 medical centers in Wuhan, China, from February 14, 2020, to April 1, 2020, with final follow-up April 28, 2020 The trial included 103 participants with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 that was severe (respiratory distress and/or hypoxemia) or life-threatening (shock, organ failure, or requiring mechanical ventilation) The trial was terminated early after 103 of a planned 200 patients were enrolled InterventionConvalescent plasma in addition to standard treatment (n = 52) vs standard treatment alone (control) (n = 51), stratified by disease severity Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrimary outcome was time to clinical improvement within 28 days, defined as patient discharged alive or reduction of 2 points on a 6-point disease severity scale (ranging from 1 [discharge] to 6 [death]) Secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, time to discharge, and the rate of viral polymerase chain reaction (PCR) results turned from positive at baseline to negative at up to 72 hours ResultsOf 103 patients who were randomized (median age, 70 years;60 [58 3%] male), 101 (98 1%) completed the trial Clinical improvement occurred within 28 days in 51 9% (27/52) of the convalescent plasma group vs 43 1% (22/51) in the control group (difference, 8 8% [95% CI, −10 4% to 28 0%];hazard ratio [HR], 1 40 [95% CI, 0 79-2 49];P = 26) Among those with severe disease, the primary outcome occurred in 91 3% (21/23) of the convalescent plasma group vs 68 2% (15/22) of the control group (HR, 2 15 [95% CI, 1 07-4 32];P = 03);among those with life-threatening disease the primary outcome occurred in 20 7% (6/29) of the convalescent plasma group vs 24 1% (7/29) of the control group (HR, 0 88 [95% CI, 0 30-2 63];P = 83) (Pfor interaction = 17) There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (15 7% vs 24 0%;OR, 0 65 [95% CI, 0 29-1 46];P = 30) or time from randomization to discharge (51 0% vs 36 0% discharged by day 28;HR, 1 61 [95% CI, 0 88-2 93];P = 12) Convalescent plasma treatment was associated with a negative conversion rate of viral PCR at 72 hours in 87 2% of the convalescent plasma group vs 37 5% of the control group (OR, 11 39 [95% CI, 3 91-33 18];P < 001) Two patients in the convalescent plasma group experienced adverse events within hours after transfusion that improved with supportive care Conclusion and RelevanceAmong patients with severe or life-threatening COVID-19, convalescent plasma therapy added to standard treatment, compared with standard treatment alone, did not result in a statistically significant improvement in time to clinical improvement within 28 days Interpretation is limited by early termination of the trial, which may have been underpowered to detect a clinically important difference Trial RegistrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry:ChiCTR2000029757
-
4.
Intra-articular platelet-rich plasma combined with hyaluronic acid injection for knee osteoarthritis is superior to PRP or HA alone in inhibiting inflammation and improving pain and function
Xu Z, He Z, Shu L, Li X, Ma M, Ye C
Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association. 2020
Abstract
PURPOSE The goal of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and explore the therapeutic mechanisms of PRP combined with HA as a treatment for knee osteoarthritis (KOA). METHODS In total, 122 knees were randomly divided into HA (34 knees), PRP (40 knees), and PRP+HA (48 knees) groups. Platelet densities in whole blood and PRP were examined using Wright-Giemsa staining. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Lequesne, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Lysholm scores and postoperative complications were evaluated. High-frequency color Doppler imaging was used to observe the synovium and cartilage. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) were used to quantify interleukin-1β (IL-1β), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3), and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 (TIMP-1) levels in synovial fluid. RESULTS The platelet density in PRP was 5.13-times that in whole blood (P = .002). At 24 months, pain and function scores in the PRP+HA group were better than those in the HA and PRP alone groups (P(pain) = .000; P(function) = .000). At 6 and 12 months, synovial hyperplasia in the PRP and PRP+HA groups was improved (P < .05). After 6 and 12 months, the synovial peak systolic velocity (PSV), synovial end diastolic velocity (EDV), systolic/diastolic ratio (S/D) and resistance index (RI) were improved in the PRP+HA group (P < .05). Complications were highest in the PRP group (P = .008). After 6 and 12 months, IL-1β, TNF-α, MMP-3, and TIMP-1 in the PRP and PRP+HA groups decreased (P < .05), with more apparent inhibition in the PRP+HA group (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS PRP combined with HA is more effective than PRP or HA alone at inhibiting synovial inflammation and can effectively improve pain and function and reduce adverse reactions. Its mechanism involves changes in the synovium and cytokine content.
-
5.
Efficacy of convalescent plasma for the treatment of severe influenza
Xu Z, Zhou J, Huang Y, Liu X, Xu Y, Chen S, Liu D, Lin Z, Liu X, Li Y
Crit Care. 2020;24(1):469
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma administration may be of clinical benefit in patients with severe influenza, but reports on the efficacy of this therapy vary. METHODS We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the administration of convalescent plasma to treat severe influenza. Healthcare databases were searched in February 2020. All records were screened against eligibility criteria, and the risks of bias were assessed. The primary outcome was the fatality rate. RESULTS A total of 2861 studies were retrieved and screened. Five eligible RCTs were identified. Pooled analyses yielded no evidence that using convalescent plasma to treat severe influenza resulted in significant reductions in mortality (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.51-2·23; P = 0.87; I(2) = 35%), number of days in the intensive care unit, or number of days on mechanical ventilation. This treatment may have the possible benefits of increasing hemagglutination inhibition titers and reducing influenza B viral loads and cytokine levels. No serious adverse events were reported. The included studies were generally of high quality with a low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS The administration of convalescent plasma appears safe but may not reduce the mortality, number of days in the intensive care unit, or number of days on mechanical ventilation in patients with severe influenza.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients hospitalized with severe influenza (5 studies, n= 598).
Intervention
Convalescent plasma or hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (H-IVIG).
Comparison
Various comparators (normal intravenous immunoglobulin, standard care, low-titre anti-influenza, placebo).
Outcome
Pooled analyses yielded no evidence that using convalescent plasma to treat severe influenza resulted in significant reductions in mortality, number of days in the intensive care unit, or number of days on mechanical ventilation.
-
6.
Association between storage age of transfused red blood cells and clinical outcomes in critically ill adults: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Zhou X, Xu Z, Wang Y, Sun L, Zhou W, Liu X
Medicina Intensiva. 2018
Abstract
OBJECTIVES A meta-analysis was performed to assesses the effect of storage age of transfused red blood cells (RBCs) upon clinical outcomes in critically ill adults. METHODS A comprehensive search was conducted in the PubMed, OVID, Web of Science and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the transfusion of fresher versus older RBCs in critically ill adults from database inception to December 2017. The primary endpoint was short-term mortality, and the secondary endpoints were the duration of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay. The pooled odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) were calculated using Stata/SE 11.0. RESULTS A total of six RCTs were identified, of which four were multicenter studies, while two were single-center trials. The pooled results indicated that the transfusion of fresher RBCs was not associated to a decrease in short-term mortality compared with the transfusion of older RBCs (random-effects OR=1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.96-1.13, P=0.312; I(2)=0.0%; six trials; 18240 patients), regardless of whether the studies were of a multi-center (random-effects OR=1.04, 95% CI: 0.96-1.13, P=0.292; I(2)=0.0%) or single-center nature (random-effects OR=1.16, 95% CI: 0.28-4.71, P=0.839; I(2)=56.7%), or with low risk of bias (random-effects OR=1.04, 95% CI: 0.94-1.16, P=0.445; I(2)=0.0%). In addition, the transfusion of fresher RBCs did not reduce the geometric mean duration of ICU stay (1.0% increase in geometric mean, 95% CI: -3.0 to 5.1%, P=0.638; I(2)=81.5%; four trials; 7550 patients) or the geometric mean duration of hospital stay (0.0% increase in geometric mean, 95% CI: -3.9 to 4.1%, P=0.957; I(2)=7.4%; four trials; 7550 patients) compared with the transfusion of older RBCs. CONCLUSIONS The transfusion of fresher RBCs compared with older RBCs was not associated to better clinical outcomes in critically ill adults.