Abstract

BACKGROUND There are no overviews of systematic reviews investigating haemoglobin thresholds for transfusion. This is important as the literature on transfusion thresholds has grown considerably in recent years. Our aim was to synthesise evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the effects of restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies on mortality. METHODS This was a systematic review of systematic reviews (overview). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Joanna Briggs Institute EBP Database, from 2008 to 2018. We included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials comparing mortality in patients assigned to red cell transfusion strategies based on haemoglobin thresholds. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed methodological quality. We assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using AMSTAR 2 and the quality of evidence pooled using an algorithm to assign GRADE levels. RESULTS We included 19 systematic reviews reporting 33 meta-analyses of mortality outcomes from 53 unique randomised controlled trials. Of the 33 meta-analyses, one was graded as high quality, 15 were moderate, and 17 were low. Of the meta-analyses presenting high- to moderate-quality evidence, 12 (75.0%) reported no statistically significant difference in mortality between restrictive and liberal transfusion groups and four (25.0%) reported significantly lower mortality for patients assigned to a restrictive transfusion strategy. We found few systematic reviews addressed clinical differences between included studies: variation was observed in haemoglobin threshold concentrations, the absolute between group difference in haemoglobin threshold concentration, time to randomisation (resulting in transfusions administered prior to randomisation), and transfusion dosing regimens. CONCLUSIONS Meta-analyses graded as high to moderate quality indicate that in most patient populations no difference in mortality exists between patients assigned to a restrictive or liberal transfusion strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42019120503.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES To determine whether a multidisciplinary, multimodal Patient Blood Management (PBM) program for patients undergoing surgery is effective in reducing perioperative complication rate, and thereby is effective in improving clinical outcome. BACKGROUND PBM is a medical concept with the focus on a comprehensive anemia management, to minimize iatrogenic (unnecessary) blood loss, and to harness and optimize patient-specific physiological tolerance of anemia. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Eligible studies had to address each of the 3 PBM pillars with at least 1 measure per pillar, for example, preoperative anemia management plus cell salvage plus rational transfusion strategy. The study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017079217). RESULTS Seventeen studies comprising 235,779 surgical patients were included in this meta-analysis (100,886 pre-PBM group and 134,893 PBM group). Implementation of PBM significantly reduced transfusion rates by 39% [risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.68, P < 0.00001], 0.43 red blood cell units per patient (mean difference -0.43, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.31, P < 0.00001), hospital length of stay (mean difference -0.45, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.25, P < 0,00001), total number of complications (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74-0.88, P <0.00001), and mortality rate (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.98, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS Overall, a comprehensive PBM program addressing all 3 PBM pillars is associated with reduced transfusion need of red blood cell units, lower complication and mortality rate, and thereby improving clinical outcome. Thus, this first meta-analysis investigating a multimodal approach should motivate all executives and health care providers to support further PBM activities.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. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0.