Abstract

OBJECTIVE The aim of this systematic scoping review is to identify and categorize the outcome measures that have been reported in clinical studies, where therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) has been used as an intervention in any clinical settings, excluding thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). METHODS We searched electronic databases using a predefined search strategy from inception to October 9, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. RESULTS We included 42 studies (37 RCTs and 5 prospective cohort studies) grouped into six main categories (neurology, immunology, renal, rheumatology, hematology, and dermatology). Primary outcomes were defined in eight studies (19%, 8/42) and were categorized as efficacy (five studies) or patient reported outcomes (three studies). A power calculation was reported in six studies (75%, 6/8): five neurology studies (mainly patient reported outcomes) and a single immunological study (efficacy outcome). Disease-specific efficacy outcomes were dependent on the clinical setting of the population receiving TPE. Most of the trials (43%, 18/42) were undertaken in patients with neurology conditions where clear, disease-specific, clinical outcome measures were used, including neurological disability scales (11/18, 61%), change in neurological examination (9/18, 50%), and functional improvement scores (7/18, 39%). For other conditions, the reporting of disease-specific outcomes was poorly reported. Safety outcomes were mainly related to replacement fluid type rather than being disease-specific. The most common outcome reported was hypotension (19%, 8/42), and this was primarily in patients exchanged with albumin. CONCLUSION Future clinical studies to determine which fluid replacement option is most efficacious and safe should use disease-specific outcomes, as a trial in one therapeutic area may not necessarily translate to another therapeutic area. Patient reported outcomes are not universally reported for all disease areas. Safety measures focused primarily on fluid safety.

Abstract

Our aim was to assess whether there is a difference in outcomes of potential "all-cause" harm in the transfusion of whole blood (WB) compared to blood components (BC) for any bleeding patient regardless of age or clinical condition. We searched multiple electronic databases using a pre-defined search strategy from inception to 2(nd) March 2021. 1 reviewer screened, extracted, and analysed data, with verification by a second reviewer of all decisions. We used Cochrane ROB1 and GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. We used predefined subgroups of trauma and non-trauma studies in the analysis. We included six RCTs (618 participants) which compared WB and BC transfusion therapy in major bleeding, one trauma trial (n = 107), and 5 surgical trials (non-trauma) (n = 511). We GRADED evidence as very-low for all outcomes (downgraded for high and unclear risk of bias, small sample size, and wide confidence intervals around the estimate). Our primary outcome (all-cause mortality at 24-hours and 30-days) was reported in 3 out of 6 included trials. There was no evidence of a difference in mortality of WB compared to BC therapy (very-low certainty evidence). There may be a benefit of WB therapy compared to BC therapy in the non-trauma subgroup, with a reduction in the duration of oxygen dependence (1 study; n = 60; mean difference 5.9 fewer hours [95% Confidence Interval [CI] -10.83, -0.99] in WB group), and a reduction in hospital stay (1 study, n = 64, median difference 6 fewer days in WB group) (very-low certainty evidence). For the remaining outcomes (organ injury, mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit requirement, infection, arterial/venous thrombotic events, and haemolytic transfusion reaction) there was no difference between WB and BC therapy (wide CI, crossing line of no effect), though many of these outcomes were based on small single studies (very-low certainty evidence). In conclusion, there appears to be little to no difference in harms between WB and BC therapy, based on small studies with very low certainty of the evidence. Further large trials are required to establish the overall safety of WB compared to BC, and to assess differences between trauma and non-trauma patients.

Abstract

There is equipoise regarding the use of prothrombin complex concentrate vs. fresh frozen plasma in bleeding patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We performed a pilot randomised controlled trial to determine the recruitment rate for a large trial, comparing the impact of prothrombin complex concentrate vs. fresh frozen plasma on haemostasis (1 h and 24 h post-intervention), and assessing safety. Adult patients who developed bleeding within 24 h of cardiac surgery that required coagulation factor replacement were randomly allocated to receive prothrombin complex concentrate (15 IU.kg(-1) based on factor IX) or fresh frozen plasma (15 ml.kg(-1) ). If bleeding continued after the first administration of prothrombin complex concentrate or fresh frozen plasma administration, standard care was administered. From February 2019 to October 2019, 180 patients were screened, of which 134 (74.4% (95%CI 67-81%)) consented, 59 bled excessively and 50 were randomly allocated; 25 in each arm, recruitment rate 35% (95%CI 27-44%). There were 23 trial protocol deviations, 137 adverse events (75 prothrombin complex concentrate vs. 62 fresh frozen plasma) and 18 serious adverse events (5 prothrombin complex concentrate vs. 13 fresh frozen plasma). There was no increase in thromboembolic events with prothrombin complex concentrate. No patient withdrew from the study, four were lost to follow-up and two died. At 1 h after administration of the intervention there was a significant increase in fibrinogen, Factor V, Factor XII, Factor XIII, α(2) -antiplasmin and antithrombin levels in the fresh frozen plasma arm, while Factor II and Factor X were significantly higher in the prothrombin complex concentrate group. At 24 h, there were no significant differences in clotting factor levels. We conclude that recruitment to a larger study is feasible. Haemostatic tests have provided useful insight into the haemostatic changes following prothrombin complex concentrate or fresh frozen plasma administration. A definitive trial is needed to ascertain the benefits and safety for each.

Abstract

BACKGROUND In the absence of bleeding, plasma is commonly transfused to people prophylactically to prevent bleeding. In this context, it is transfused before operative or invasive procedures (such as liver biopsy or chest drainage tube insertion) in those considered at increased risk of bleeding, typically defined by abnormalities of laboratory tests of coagulation. As plasma contains procoagulant factors, plasma transfusion may reduce perioperative bleeding risk. This outcome has clinical importance given that perioperative bleeding and blood transfusion have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Plasma is expensive, and some countries have experienced issues with blood product shortages, donor pool reliability, and incomplete screening for transmissible infections. Thus, although the benefit of prophylactic plasma transfusion has not been well established, plasma transfusion does carry potentially life-threatening risks. OBJECTIVES To determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of prophylactic plasma transfusion for people with coagulation test abnormalities (in the absence of inherited bleeding disorders or use of anticoagulant medication) requiring non-cardiac surgery or invasive procedures. SEARCH METHODS We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), without language or publication status restrictions in: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017 Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946); Ovid Embase (from 1974); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCOHost) (from 1937); PubMed (e-publications and in-process citations ahead of print only); Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950); Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (from 1982); Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (Thomson Reuters, from 1990); ClinicalTrials.gov; and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Search Platform (ICTRP) to 28 January 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs comparing: prophylactic plasma transfusion to placebo, intravenous fluid, or no intervention; prophylactic plasma transfusion to alternative pro-haemostatic agents; or different haemostatic thresholds for prophylactic plasma transfusion. We included participants of any age, and we excluded trials incorporating individuals with previous active bleeding, with inherited bleeding disorders, or taking anticoagulant medication before enrolment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS We included five trials in this review, all were conducted in high-income countries. Three additional trials are ongoing. One trial compared fresh frozen plasma (FFP) transfusion with no transfusion given. One trial compared FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion given. One trial compared FFP transfusion with administration of alternative pro-haemostatic agents (factors II, IX, and X followed by VII). One trial compared the use of different transfusion triggers using the international normalised ratio measurement. One trial compared the use of a thromboelastographic-guided transfusion trigger using standard laboratory measurements of coagulation. Four trials enrolled only adults, whereas the fifth trial did not specify participant age. Four trials included only minor procedures that could be performed by the bedside. Only one trial included some participants undergoing major surgical operations. Two trials included only participants in intensive care. Two trials included only participants with liver disease. Three trials did not recruit sufficient participants to meet their pre-calculated sample size. Overall, the quality of evidence was low to very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology, due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision. One trial was stopped after recruiting two participants, therefore this review's findings are based on the remaining four trials (234 participants). When plasma transfusion was compared with no transfusion given, we are very uncertain whether there was a difference in 30-day mortality (1 trial comparing FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion, 72 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 1.10; very low-quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether there was a difference in major bleeding within 24 hours (1 trial comparing FFP transfusion vs no transfusion, 76 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.93; very low-quality evidence; 1 trial comparing FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion, 72 participants; RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.28 to 8.93; very low-quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether there was a difference in the number of blood product transfusions per person (1 trial, 76 participants; study authors reported no difference; very low-quality evidence) or in the number of people requiring transfusion (1 trial comparing FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion, 72 participants; study authors reported no blood transfusion given; very low-quality evidence) or in the risk of transfusion-related adverse events (acute lung injury) (1 trial, 76 participants; study authors reported no difference; very low-quality evidence). When plasma transfusion was compared with other pro-haemostatic agents, we are very uncertain whether there was a difference in major bleeding (1 trial; 21 participants; no events; very low-quality evidence) or in transfusion-related adverse events (febrile or allergic reactions) (1 trial, 21 participants; RR 9.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 162.24; very low-quality evidence). When different triggers for FFP transfusion were compared, the number of people requiring transfusion may have been reduced (for overall blood products) when a thromboelastographic-guided transfusion trigger was compared with standard laboratory tests (1 trial, 60 participants; RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; low-quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether there was a difference in major bleeding (1 trial, 60 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-quality evidence) or in transfusion-related adverse events (allergic reactions) (1 trial; 60 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-quality evidence). Only one trial reported 30-day mortality. No trials reported procedure-related harmful events (excluding bleeding) or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Review findings show uncertainty for the utility and safety of prophylactic FFP use. This is due to predominantly very low-quality evidence that is available for its use over a range of clinically important outcomes, together with lack of confidence in the wider applicability of study findings, given the paucity or absence of study data in settings such as major body cavity surgery, extensive soft tissue surgery, orthopaedic surgery, or neurosurgery. Therefore, from the limited RCT evidence, we can neither support nor oppose the use of prophylactic FFP in clinical practice.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is a common treatment for anaemia in many conditions. The safety and efficacy of transfusing RBC units that have been stored for different durations before a transfusion is a current concern. The duration of storage for a RBC unit can be up to 42 days. If evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCT) were to indicate that clinical outcomes are affected by storage duration, the implications for inventory management and clinical practice would be significant. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of using red blood cells (RBCs) stored for a shorter versus a longer duration, or versus RBCs stored for standard practice duration, in people requiring a RBC transfusion. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed (for epublications), LILACS, Transfusion Evidence Library, Web of Science CPCI-S and four international clinical trial registries on 20 November 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs that compared transfusion of RBCs of shorter versus longer storage duration, or versus standard practice storage duration. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard Cochrane methods. MAIN RESULTS We included 22 trials (42,835 participants) in this review.The GRADE quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate for our primary outcome of in-hospital and short-term mortality reported at different time points.Transfusion of RBCs of shorter versus longer storage duration Eleven trials (2249 participants) compared transfusion of RBCs of shorter versus longer storage duration. Two trials enrolled low birth weight neonates, two enrolled children with severe anaemia secondary to malaria or sickle cell disease, and eight enrolled adults across a range of clinical settings (intensive care, cardiac surgery, major elective surgery, hospitalised in-patients, haematology outpatients). We judged only two trials to be at low risk of bias across all domains; most trials had an unclear risk for multiple domains.Transfusion of RBCs of shorter versus longer storage duration probably leads to little or no difference in mortality at seven-day follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 3.06; 1 trial, 3098 participants; moderate quality evidence) or 30-day follow-up (RR 0.85, 95%CI 0.50 to 1.45; 2 trials, 1121 participants; moderate quality evidence) in adults undergoing major elective cardiac or non-cardiac surgery.For neonates, no studies reported on the primary outcome of in-hospital or short-term mortality. At 40 weeks gestational age, the effect of RBCs of shorter versus longer storage duration on the risk of death was uncertain, as the quality of evidence is very low (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.85; 1 trial, 52 participants).The effect of RBCs of shorter versus longer storage duration on the risk of death in children with severe anaemia was also uncertain within 24 hours of transfusion (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.25; 2 trials, 364 participants; very low quality evidence), or at 30-day follow-up (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.31; 1 trial, 290 participants; low quality evidence).Only one trial, in children with severe anaemia (290 participants), reported adverse transfusion reactions. Only one child in each arm experienced an adverse reaction within 24 hours of transfusion.Transfusion of RBCs of shorter versus standard practice storage duration Eleven trials (40,588 participants) compared transfusion of RBCs of shorter versus standard practice storage duration. Three trials enrolled critically ill term neonates; two of these enrolled very low birth weight neonates. There were no trials in children. Eight trials enrolled critically ill and non-critically ill adults, with most being hospitalised. We judged four trials to be at low risk of bias across all domains with the others having an unclear risk of bias across multiple domains.Transfusion of RBCs of shorter versus standard practice storage duration probably leads to little or no difference in adult in-hospital mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.14; 4 trials, 25,704 participants; moderate quality evidence), ICU mortality (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.15; 3 trials, 13,066 participants; moderate quality evidence), or 30-day mortality (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.13; 4 trials, 7510 participants;moderate quality evidence).Two of the three trials that enrolled neonates reported that there were no adverse transfusion reactions. One trial reported an isolated case of cytomegalovirus infection in participants assigned to the standard practice storage duration group. Two trials in critically ill adults reported data on transfusion reactions: one observed no difference in acute transfusion reactions between arms (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.36, 2413 participants), but the other observed more febrile nonhaemolytic reactions in the shorter storage duration arm (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.95, 4919 participants).Trial sequential analysis showed that we may now have sufficient evidence to reject a 5% relative risk increase or decrease of death within 30 days when transfusing RBCs of shorter versus longer storage duration across all patient groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The effect of storage duration on clinically important outcomes has now been investigated in large, high quality RCTs, predominantly in adults. There appears to be no evidence of an effect on mortality that is related to length of storage of transfused RBCs. However, the quality of evidence in neonates and children is low. The current practice in blood banks of using the oldest available RBCs can be continued safely. Additional RCTs are not required, but research using alternative study designs, should focus on particular subgroups (e.g. those requiring multiple RBC units) and on factors affecting RBC quality.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a leading indication for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion worldwide, although optimal thresholds for transfusion are debated. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and the Transfusion Evidence Library from inception to Oct 20, 2016, for randomised controlled trials comparing restrictive and liberal RBC transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Main outcomes were mortality, rebleeding, ischaemic events, and mean RBC transfusion. We computed pooled estimates for each outcome by random effects meta-analysis, and individual participant data for a cluster randomised trial were re-analysed to facilitate meta-analysis. We compared treatment effects between patient subgroups, including patients with liver cirrhosis, patients with non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and patients with ischaemic heart disease at baseline. FINDINGS We included four published and one unpublished randomised controlled trial, totalling 1965 participants. The number of RBC units transfused was lower in the restrictive transfusion group than in the liberal transfusion group (mean difference -1.73 units, 95% CI -2.36 to -1.11, p<0.0001). Restrictive transfusion was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.65, 95% CI 0.44-0.97, p=0.03) and rebleeding overall (0.58, 0.40-0.84, p=0.004). We detected no difference in risk of ischaemic events. There were no statistically significant differences in the subgroups. INTERPRETATION These results support more widespread implementation of restrictive transfusion policies for adults with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. FUNDING None.

Abstract

BACKGROUND People with haematological disorders are frequently at risk of severe or life-threatening bleeding as a result of thrombocytopenia (reduced platelet count). This is despite the routine use of prophylactic platelet transfusions to prevent bleeding once the platelet count falls below a certain threshold. Platelet transfusions are not without risk and adverse events may be life-threatening. A possible adjunct to prophylactic platelet transfusions is the use of antifibrinolytics, specifically the lysine analogues tranexamic acid (TXA) and epsilon aminocaproic acid (EACA). This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES To determine the efficacy and safety of antifibrinolytics (lysine analogues) in preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders. SEARCH METHODS We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950) and ongoing trial databases to 07 March 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs involving participants with haematological disorders, who would routinely require prophylactic platelet transfusions to prevent bleeding. We only included trials involving the use of the lysine analogues TXA and EACA. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened all electronically-derived citations and abstracts of papers, identified by the review search strategy, for relevancy. Two review authors independently assessed the full text of all potentially relevant trials for eligibility, completed the data extraction and assessed the studies for risk of bias using The Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool. We requested missing data from one author but the data were no longer available. The outcomes are reported narratively: we performed no meta-analyses because of the heterogeneity of the available data. MAIN RESULTS We identified three new studies in this update of the review. In total seven studies were eligible for inclusion, three were ongoing RCTs and four were completed studies. The four completed studies were included in the original review and the three ongoing studies were included in this update. We did not identify any RCTs that compared TXA with EACA.Of the four completed studies, one cross-over TXA study (eight participants) was excluded from the outcome analysis because it had very flawed study methodology. Data from the other three studies were all at unclear risk of bias due to lack of reporting of study methodology.Three studies (two TXA (12 to 56 participants), one EACA (18 participants) reported in four articles (published 1983 to 1995) were included in the narrative review. All three studies compared the drug with placebo. All three studies included adults with acute leukaemia receiving chemotherapy. One study (12 participants) only included participants with acute promyelocytic leukaemia. None of the studies included children. One of the three studies reported funding sources and this study was funded by a charity.We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics reduce the risk of bleeding (three studies; 86 participants; very low-quality evidence). Only one study reported the number of bleeding events per participant and there was no difference in the number of bleeding events seen during induction or consolidation chemotherapy between TXA and placebo (induction; 38 participants; mean difference (MD) 1.70 bleeding events, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.37 to 3.77: consolidation; 18 participants; MD -1.50 bleeding events, 95% CI -3.25 to 0.25; very low-quality evidence). The two other studies suggested bleeding was reduced in the antifibrinolytic study arm, but this was statistically significant in only one of these two studies.Two studies reported thromboembolism and no events occurred (68 participants, very low-quality evidence).All three studies reported a reduction in platelet transfusion usage (three studies, 86 participants;

Abstract

BACKGROUND Fresh frozen plasma (FFP) is a blood component containing procoagulant factors, which is sometimes used in cardiovascular surgery with the aim of reducing the risk of bleeding. The purpose of this review is to assess the risk of mortality for patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery who receive FFP. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the risk to benefit ratio of FFP transfusion in cardiovascular surgery for the treatment of bleeding patients or for prophylaxis against bleeding. SEARCH METHODS We searched 11 bibliographic databases and four ongoing trials databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, 2015), MEDLINE (OvidSP, 1946 to 21 April 2015), EMBASE (OvidSP, 1974 to 21 April 2015), PubMed (e-publications only: searched 21 April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP and the ISRCTN Register (searched 21 April 2015). We also searched the references of all identified trials and relevant review articles. We did not limit the searches by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials in patients undergoing major cardiac or vascular surgery who were allocated to a FFP group or a comparator (no plasma or an active comparator, either clinical plasma (any type) or a plasma-derived blood product). We included participants of any age (neonates, children and adults). We excluded studies of plasmapheresis and plasma exchange. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors screened all electronically derived citations and abstracts of papers identified by the review search strategy. Two authors assessed risk of bias in the included studies and extracted data independently. We took care to note whether FFP was used therapeutically or prophylactically within each trial. MAIN RESULTS We included 15 trials, with a total of 755 participants for analysis in the review. Fourteen trials compared prophylactic use of FFP against no FFP. One study compared therapeutic use of two types of plasma. The timing of intervention varied, including FFP transfusion at the time of heparin neutralisation and stopping cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) (seven trials), with CPB priming (four trials), after anaesthesia induction (one trial) and postoperatively (two trials). Twelve trials excluded patients having emergency surgery and nine excluded patients with coagulopathies.Overall the trials were small, with only four reporting an a priori sample size calculation. No trial was powered to determine changes in mortality as a primary outcome. There was either high risk of bias, or unclear risk, in the majority of trials included in this review.There was no difference in the number of deaths between the intervention arms in the six trials (with 287 patients) reporting mortality (very low quality evidence). There was also no difference in blood loss in the first 24 hours for neonatal/paediatric patients (four trials with 138 patients; low quality evidence): mean difference (MD) -1.46 ml/kg (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.7 to 1.78 ml/kg); or adult patients (one trial with 120 patients): MD -12.00 ml (95% CI -101.16 to 77.16 ml).Transfusion with FFP was inferior to control for preventing patients receiving any red cell transfusion: Peto odds ratio (OR) 2.57 (95% CI 1.30 to 5.08; moderate quality evidence). There was a difference in prothrombin time within two hours of FFP transfusion in eight trials (with 210 patients; moderate quality evidence) favouring the FFP arm: MD -0.71 seconds (95% CI -1.28 to -0.13 seconds). There was no difference in the risk of returning to theatre for reoperation (eight trials with 398 patients; moderate quality evidence): Peto OR 0.81 (95% CI 0.26 to 2.57). Only one included study reported adverse events as an outcome and reported no significant adverse events following FFP transfusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review has found no evidence to support the prophylactic administration of FFP to patients without coagulopathy undergoing elective cardiac surgery. There was insufficient evidence about treatment of p

Abstract

BACKGROUND Red blood cell transfusion is a common treatment for anaemia in many clinical conditions. One current concern is uncertainty as to the clinical consequences (notably efficacy and safety) of transfusing red blood cell units that have been stored for different durations of time before a transfusion. If evidence from randomised controlled trials were to indicate that clinical outcomes are affected by storage age, the implications for inventory management and clinical practice would be significant. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of using fresher versus older red blood cells in people requiring a red blood cell transfusion. SEARCH METHODS We ran the search on 29th September 2014. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCO), PubMed (for e-publications), three other databases and trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials comparing fresher red blood cell transfusion versus active transfusion of older red blood cells, and comparing fresher red blood cell transfusion versus current standard practice. All definitions of 'fresher' and 'older'/'standard practice' red blood cells were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted from the trial report data on adverse red blood cell transfusion reactions, when reported. MAIN RESULTS We included 16 trials (1864 participants) in the review. Eight trials (279 participants) compared transfusion of fresher red blood cells versus transfusion of older stored red blood cells ('fresher' vs 'older'). Eight trials (1585 participants) compared the transfusion of fresher red blood cells versus current standard practice ('fresher' vs 'standard practice'). Five trials enrolled neonates, one trial enrolled children and 12 trials enrolled adults. Overall sample sizes were small: only two trials randomly assigned more than 100 participants.We performed no meta-analyses for a variety of reasons: no uniform definition of 'fresher' or 'older' red blood cell storage; overlap in the distribution of the age of red blood cells; and heterogeneity in measurements and reporting of outcomes of interest to this review. We tabulated and reported results by individual trial. Overall risk of bias was low or unclear, with four incidences of high risk of bias: in allocation concealment (three trials) and in incomplete outcome data (one trial).No trial measured all of the outcomes of interest in this review. Four trials comparing 'fresher' with 'older' red blood cells reported the primary outcome: mortality within seven days (one study; 74 participants) and at 30 days (three trials; 62 participants). Six trials comparing 'fresher' with 'standard practice' red blood cells reported the primary outcome: mortality within seven days (three studies; 159 participants) and at 30 days (three trials; 1018 participants). All 10 trials reported no clear differences in mortality at either time point between intervention arms.Three trials comparing 'fresher' with 'standard practice' red blood cells reported red blood cell transfusion-associated adverse events. No adverse reactions were reported in two trials, and one incidence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was described in the 'standard practice' arm in one trial.Overall the trials reported no clear difference between either of the intervention comparisons in long-term mortality (three trials; 478 participants); clinically accepted measures of multiple organ dysfunction (two trials: 399 participants); incidence of in-hospital infection (two trials; 429 participants); duration of mechanical ventilation (three trials: 95 participants); and number of participants requiring respiratory organ support (five trials; 528 participants) or renal support (one trial; 57 participants). The outcome 'physiological markers of oxygen consumption or alterations in microcirculation' was reported by 11 studies, but the measures used were highly varied, and no formal statistical analysis was undert

Abstract

BACKGROUND The incidence of hip fracture is increasing and it is more common with increasing age. Surgery is used for almost all hip fractures. Blood loss occurs as a consequence of both the fracture and the surgery and thus red blood cell transfusion is frequently used. However, red blood cell transfusion is not without risks. Therefore, it is important to identify the evidence for the effective and safe use of red blood cell transfusion in people with hip fracture. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of red blood cell transfusion in people undergoing surgery for hip fracture. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (31 October 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2014, Issue 10), MEDLINE (January 1946 to 20 November 2014), EMBASE (January 1974 to 20 November 2014), CINAHL (January 1982 to 20 November 2014), British Nursing Index Database (January 1992 to 20 November 2014), the Systematic Review Initiative's Transfusion Evidence Library, PubMed for e-publications, various other databases and ongoing trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials comparing red blood cell transfusion versus no transfusion or an alternative to transfusion, different transfusion protocols or different transfusion thresholds in people undergoing surgery for hip fracture. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Three review authors independently assessed each study's risk of bias and extracted data using a study-specific form. We pooled data where there was homogeneity in the trial comparisons and the timing of outcome measurement. We used GRADE criteria to assess the quality (low, moderate or high) of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS We included six trials (2722 participants): all compared two thresholds for red blood cell transfusion: a 'liberal' strategy to maintain a haemoglobin concentration of usually 10 g/dL versus a more 'restrictive' strategy based on symptoms of anaemia or a lower haemoglobin concentration, usually 8 g/dL. The exact nature of the transfusion interventions, types of surgery and participants varied between trials. The mean age of participants ranged from 81 to 87 years and approximately 24% of participants were men. The largest trial enrolled 2016 participants, over 60% of whom had a history of cardiovascular disease. The percentage of participants receiving a red blood cell transfusion ranged from 74% to 100% in the liberal transfusion threshold group and from 11% to 45% in the restrictive transfusion threshold group. There were no results available for the smallest trial (18 participants). All studies were at some risk of bias, in particular performance bias relating to the absence of blinding of personnel. We judged the evidence for all outcomes, except myocardial infarction, was low quality reflecting risk of bias primarily from imbalances in protocol violations in the largest trial and imprecision, often because of insufficient events. Thus, further research is likely to have an important impact on these results.There was no evidence of a difference between a liberal versus restricted threshold transfusion in mortality, at 30 days post hip fracture surgery (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.26; five trials; 2683 participants; low quality evidence) or at 60 days post surgery (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.44; three trials; 2283 participants; low quality evidence). Assuming an illustrative baseline risk of 50 deaths per 1000 participants in the restricted threshold group at 30 days, these data equate to four fewer (95% CI 17 fewer to 14 more) deaths per 1000 in the liberal threshold group at 30 days.There was no evidence of a difference between a liberal versus restricted threshold transfusion in functional recovery at 60 days, assessed in terms of the inability to walk 10 feet (3 m) without human assistance (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.15; two trials; 2083 participants; low quality evidence).There was low quality evidence of no difference betwe