1.
A physiology-based trigger score to guide perioperative transfusion of allogeneic red blood cells: A multicentre randomised controlled trial
Lu K, Huang Z, Liang S, Pan F, Zhang C, Wei J, Wei H, Wang Y, Liao R, Huang A, et al
Transfusion medicine (Oxford, England). 2022
-
-
-
Free full text
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Restrictive blood transfusion is recommended by major guidelines for perioperative management, but requires objective assessment at 7-10 g/dl haemoglobin (Hb). A scoring system that considers the physiological needs of the heart may simply the practice and reduce transfusion. METHODS Patients (14-65 years of age) undergoing non-cardiac surgery were randomised at a 1:1 ratio to a control group versus a Perioperative Transfusion Trigger Score (POTTS) group. POTTS (maximum of 10) was calculated as 6 plus the following: adrenaline infusion rate (0 for no infusion, 1 for ≤0.05 μg·kg(-1) ·min(-1) , and 2 for higher rate), FiO(2) to keep SpO(2) at ≥95% (0 for ≤35%, 1 for 36%-50%, and 2 for higher), core temperature (0 for <38°C, 1 for 38-40°C, and 2 for higher), and angina history (0 for no, 1 for exertional, and 2 for resting). Transfusion is indicated when actual Hb is lower than the calculated POTTS in individual patients. Transfusion in the control group was based on the 2012 American Association for Blood Banks (AABB) guideline. The primary outcome was the proportion of the patients requiring transfusion of allogeneic red blood cells (RBCs) during the perioperative period (until discharge from hospital), as assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (all randomised subjects). RESULT A total of 864 patients (mean age 44.4 years, 244 men and 620 women) were enrolled from December 2017 to January 2021 (433 in the control and 431 in the POTTS group). Baseline Hb was 9.2 ± 1.8 and 9.2 ± 1.7 g/dl in the control and POTTS groups, respectively. In the ITT analysis, the proportion of the patients receiving allogeneic RBCs was 43.9% (190/433) in the control group versus 36.9% (159/431) in the POTTS group (p = 0.036). Lower rate of allogeneic RBCs transfusion in the POTTS group was also evident in the per-protocol analysis (42.8% vs. 35.5%, p = 0.030). Transfusion volume was 4.0 (2.0, 6.0) and 3.5 (2.0, 5.5) units (200 ml/unit) in the control and POTTS groups, respectively (p = 0.25). The rate of severe postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade IIIa and higher) was 3.9% in the control group versus 1.2% in the POTTS group (p = 0.010). CONCLUSION Transfusion of allogeneic RBCs based on the POTTS was safe and reduced the transfusion requirement in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.
PICO Summary
Population
Patients (14-65 years old) undergoing non-cardiac surgery (n= 864).
Intervention
Transfusion based on a perioperative transfusion trigger score (POTTS), (n= 431).
Comparison
Restrictive transfusion (n= 433).
Outcome
In the intention to treat analysis, the proportion of the patients receiving allogeneic red blood cells (RBCs) was 43.9% (190) in the restrictive group vs. 36.9% (159) in the POTTS group. Lower rate of allogeneic RBCs transfusion in the POTTS group was also evident in the per-protocol analysis (42.8% vs. 35.5%). Transfusion volume was 4.0 (2.0, 6.0) and 3.5 (2.0, 5.5) units (200 ml/unit) in the restrictive and POTTS groups, respectively. The rate of severe post-operative complications was 3.9% in the restrictive group vs. 1.2% in the POTTS group.
2.
Impact of restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy on thrombosis-related events: A meta-analysis and systematic review
Maimaitiming M, Zhang C, Xie J, Zheng Z, Luo H, Ooi OC
Vox sanguinis. 2022
-
-
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES There is an ongoing controversy regarding the risks of restrictive and liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategies. This meta-analysis assessed whether transfusion at a lower threshold was superior to transfusion at a higher threshold, with regard to thrombosis-related events, that is, whether these outcomes can benefit from a restrictive transfusion strategy is debated. MATERIALS AND METHODS We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus from inception up to 31 July 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any clinical setting that evaluated the effects of restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion in adults. We used random-effects models to calculate the risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on pooled data. RESULTS Thirty RCTs involving 17,334 participants were included. The pooled RR for thromboembolic events was 0.65 (95% CI 0.44-0.94; p = 0.020; I(2) = 0.0%, very low-quality evidence), favouring the restrictive strategy. There were no significant differences in cerebrovascular accidents (RR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.64-1.09; p = 0.180; I(2) = 0.0%, very low-quality evidence) or myocardial infarction (RR = 1.05; 95% CI 0.87-1.26; p = 0.620; I(2) = 0.0%, low-quality evidence). Subgroup analyses showed that a restrictive (relative to liberal) strategy reduced (1) thromboembolic events in RCTs conducted in North America and (2) myocardial infarctions in the subgroup of RCTs where the restrictive transfusion threshold was 7 g/dl but not in the 8 g/dl subgroup (with a liberal transfusion threshold of 10 g/dl in both subgroups). CONCLUSIONS A restrictive (relative to liberal) transfusion strategy may be effective in reducing venous thrombosis but not arterial thrombosis.
PICO Summary
Population
Adult patients in any clinical setting (30 studies, n= 17,334).
Intervention
Restrictive red blood cell transfusion.
Comparison
Liberal red blood cell transfusion.
Outcome
The pooled risk ratio (RR) for thromboembolic events was 0.65 (very low-quality evidence), favouring the restrictive strategy. There were no significant differences in cerebrovascular accidents (RR= 0.83, very low-quality evidence) or myocardial infarction (RR= 1.05, low-quality evidence). Subgroup analyses showed that a restrictive (relative to liberal) strategy reduced thromboembolic events in trials conducted in North America, and myocardial infarctions in the subgroup of trials where the restrictive transfusion threshold was 7 g/dl but not in the 8 g/dl subgroup (with a liberal transfusion threshold of 10 g/dl in both subgroups).