Restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in the perioperative and acute care settings: A context-specific systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Frédérique Hovaguimian, Paul S. Myles

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Background: Blood transfusions are associated with morbidity and mortality. However, restrictive thresholds could harm patients less able to tolerate anemia. Using a context-specific approach (according to patient characteristics and clinical settings), the authors conducted a systematic review to quantify the effects of transfusion strategies. Methods: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature sources to November 2015 for randomized controlled trials comparing restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies applied more than 24 h in adult surgical or critically ill patients. Data were independently extracted. Risk ratios were calculated for 30-day complications, defined as inadequate oxygen supply (myocardial, cerebral, renal, mesenteric, and peripheral ischemic injury; arrhythmia; and unstable angina), mortality, composite of both, and infections. Statistical combination followed a context-specific approach. Additional analyses explored transfusion protocol heterogeneity and cointerventions effects. Results: Thirty-one trials were regrouped into five context-specific risk strata. In patients undergoing cardiac/vascular procedures, restrictive strategies seemed to increase the risk of events reflecting inadequate oxygen supply (risk ratio [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.22), mortality (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.04), and composite events (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.24 - 3322, 3245, and 3322 patients, respectively). Similar results were found in elderly orthopedic patients (inadequate oxygen supply: RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.92; mortality: RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.49; composite outcome: RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.54 - 3465, 3546, and 3749 patients, respectively), but not in critically ill patients. No difference was found for infections, although a protective effect may exist. Risk estimates varied with successful/unsuccessful transfusion protocol implementation. Conclusions: Restrictive transfusion strategies should be applied with caution in high-risk patients undergoing major surgery.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)46-61
Number of pages16
JournalAnesthesiology
Volume125
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2016

Cite this

@article{74c19580cf1c4529a553cda46ed4f789,
title = "Restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in the perioperative and acute care settings: A context-specific systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials",
abstract = "Background: Blood transfusions are associated with morbidity and mortality. However, restrictive thresholds could harm patients less able to tolerate anemia. Using a context-specific approach (according to patient characteristics and clinical settings), the authors conducted a systematic review to quantify the effects of transfusion strategies. Methods: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature sources to November 2015 for randomized controlled trials comparing restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies applied more than 24 h in adult surgical or critically ill patients. Data were independently extracted. Risk ratios were calculated for 30-day complications, defined as inadequate oxygen supply (myocardial, cerebral, renal, mesenteric, and peripheral ischemic injury; arrhythmia; and unstable angina), mortality, composite of both, and infections. Statistical combination followed a context-specific approach. Additional analyses explored transfusion protocol heterogeneity and cointerventions effects. Results: Thirty-one trials were regrouped into five context-specific risk strata. In patients undergoing cardiac/vascular procedures, restrictive strategies seemed to increase the risk of events reflecting inadequate oxygen supply (risk ratio [RR], 1.09; 95{\%} CI, 0.97 to 1.22), mortality (RR, 1.39; 95{\%} CI, 0.95 to 2.04), and composite events (RR, 1.12; 95{\%} CI, 1.01 to 1.24 - 3322, 3245, and 3322 patients, respectively). Similar results were found in elderly orthopedic patients (inadequate oxygen supply: RR, 1.41; 95{\%} CI, 1.03 to 1.92; mortality: RR, 1.09; 95{\%} CI, 0.80 to 1.49; composite outcome: RR, 1.24; 95{\%} CI, 1.00 to 1.54 - 3465, 3546, and 3749 patients, respectively), but not in critically ill patients. No difference was found for infections, although a protective effect may exist. Risk estimates varied with successful/unsuccessful transfusion protocol implementation. Conclusions: Restrictive transfusion strategies should be applied with caution in high-risk patients undergoing major surgery.",
author = "Fr{\'e}d{\'e}rique Hovaguimian and Myles, {Paul S.}",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/ALN.0000000000001162",
language = "English",
volume = "125",
pages = "46--61",
journal = "Anesthesiology",
issn = "0003-3022",
publisher = "American Society of Anesthesiologists",
number = "1",

}

Restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in the perioperative and acute care settings : A context-specific systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. / Hovaguimian, Frédérique; Myles, Paul S.

In: Anesthesiology, Vol. 125, No. 1, 01.07.2016, p. 46-61.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in the perioperative and acute care settings

T2 - A context-specific systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AU - Hovaguimian, Frédérique

AU - Myles, Paul S.

PY - 2016/7/1

Y1 - 2016/7/1

N2 - Background: Blood transfusions are associated with morbidity and mortality. However, restrictive thresholds could harm patients less able to tolerate anemia. Using a context-specific approach (according to patient characteristics and clinical settings), the authors conducted a systematic review to quantify the effects of transfusion strategies. Methods: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature sources to November 2015 for randomized controlled trials comparing restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies applied more than 24 h in adult surgical or critically ill patients. Data were independently extracted. Risk ratios were calculated for 30-day complications, defined as inadequate oxygen supply (myocardial, cerebral, renal, mesenteric, and peripheral ischemic injury; arrhythmia; and unstable angina), mortality, composite of both, and infections. Statistical combination followed a context-specific approach. Additional analyses explored transfusion protocol heterogeneity and cointerventions effects. Results: Thirty-one trials were regrouped into five context-specific risk strata. In patients undergoing cardiac/vascular procedures, restrictive strategies seemed to increase the risk of events reflecting inadequate oxygen supply (risk ratio [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.22), mortality (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.04), and composite events (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.24 - 3322, 3245, and 3322 patients, respectively). Similar results were found in elderly orthopedic patients (inadequate oxygen supply: RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.92; mortality: RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.49; composite outcome: RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.54 - 3465, 3546, and 3749 patients, respectively), but not in critically ill patients. No difference was found for infections, although a protective effect may exist. Risk estimates varied with successful/unsuccessful transfusion protocol implementation. Conclusions: Restrictive transfusion strategies should be applied with caution in high-risk patients undergoing major surgery.

AB - Background: Blood transfusions are associated with morbidity and mortality. However, restrictive thresholds could harm patients less able to tolerate anemia. Using a context-specific approach (according to patient characteristics and clinical settings), the authors conducted a systematic review to quantify the effects of transfusion strategies. Methods: The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and grey literature sources to November 2015 for randomized controlled trials comparing restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies applied more than 24 h in adult surgical or critically ill patients. Data were independently extracted. Risk ratios were calculated for 30-day complications, defined as inadequate oxygen supply (myocardial, cerebral, renal, mesenteric, and peripheral ischemic injury; arrhythmia; and unstable angina), mortality, composite of both, and infections. Statistical combination followed a context-specific approach. Additional analyses explored transfusion protocol heterogeneity and cointerventions effects. Results: Thirty-one trials were regrouped into five context-specific risk strata. In patients undergoing cardiac/vascular procedures, restrictive strategies seemed to increase the risk of events reflecting inadequate oxygen supply (risk ratio [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.22), mortality (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.04), and composite events (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.24 - 3322, 3245, and 3322 patients, respectively). Similar results were found in elderly orthopedic patients (inadequate oxygen supply: RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.92; mortality: RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.49; composite outcome: RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.54 - 3465, 3546, and 3749 patients, respectively), but not in critically ill patients. No difference was found for infections, although a protective effect may exist. Risk estimates varied with successful/unsuccessful transfusion protocol implementation. Conclusions: Restrictive transfusion strategies should be applied with caution in high-risk patients undergoing major surgery.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84966714407&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001162

DO - 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001162

M3 - Article

VL - 125

SP - 46

EP - 61

JO - Anesthesiology

JF - Anesthesiology

SN - 0003-3022

IS - 1

ER -