Excess of Veno-Occlusive Disease in a Randomized Clinical Trial on a Higher Trigger for Red Blood Cell Transfusion after Bone Marrow Transplantation: A Canadian Blood and Marrow Transplant Group Trial

Restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies for people with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without haematopoietic stem cell support

BACKGROUND

An estimated one-quarter to one-half of people diagnosed with haematological malignancies experience anaemia. There are different strategies for red blood cell (RBC) transfusions to treat anaemia. A restrictive transfusion strategy permits a lower haemoglobin (Hb) level whereas a liberal transfusion strategy aims to maintain a higher Hb. The most effective and safest strategy is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategies for people diagnosed with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without a haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies (NRS) in MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1982), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2023, Issue 2), and eight other databases (including three trial registries) to 21 March 2023. We also searched grey literature and contacted experts in transfusion for additional trials. There were no language, date or publication status restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and prospective NRS that evaluated restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategies in children or adults with malignant haematological disorders receiving intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without HSCT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened references, full-text reports of potentially relevant studies, extracted data from the studies, and assessed the risk of bias. Any disagreement was discussed and resolved with a third review author. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Narrative syntheses were used for heterogeneous outcome measures. Review Manager Web was used to meta-analyse the data. Main outcomes of interest included: all-cause mortality at 31 to 100 days, quality of life, number of participants with any bleeding, number of participants with clinically significant bleeding, serious infections, length of hospital admission (days) and hospital readmission at 0 to 3 months. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies met eligibility; eight RCTs and one NRS. Six hundred and forty-four participants were included from six completed RCTs (n = 560) and one completed NRS (n = 84), with two ongoing RCTs consisting of 294 participants (260 adult and 34 paediatric) pending inclusion. Only one completed RCT included children receiving HSCT (n = 6); the other five RCTs only included adults: 239 with acute leukaemia receiving chemotherapy and 315 receiving HSCT (166 allogeneic and 149 autologous). The transfusion threshold ranged from 70 g/L to 80 g/L for restrictive and from 80 g/L to 120 g/L for liberal strategies. Effects were reported in the summary of findings tables only for the trials that included adults to reduce indirectness due to the limited evidence contributed by the prematurely terminated paediatric trial. Evidence from RCTs Overall, there may be little to no difference in the number of participants who die within 31 to 100 days using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy, but the evidence is very uncertain (three studies; 451 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.70, P=0.99; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in quality of life at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy, but the evidence is very uncertain (three studies; 431 participants; analysis unable to be completed due to heterogeneity; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who suffer from any bleeding at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (three studies; 448 participants; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06, P = 0.22; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who suffer from clinically significant bleeding at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (four studies; 511 participants; RR: 0.94, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.19, P = 0.60; low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who experience serious infections at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (three studies, 451 participants; RR: 1.20, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.55, P = 0.17; low-certainty evidence). A restrictive transfusion strategy likely results in little to no difference in the length of hospital admission at 0 to 3 months compared to a liberal strategy (two studies; 388 participants; analysis unable to be completed due to heterogeneity in reporting; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between hospital readmission using a restrictive transfusion strategy compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (one study, 299 participants; RR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.50; P = 0.65; low-certainty evidence). Evidence from NRS The evidence is very uncertain whether a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy: reduces the risk of death within 100 days (one study, 84 participants, restrictive 1 death; liberal 1 death; very low-certainty evidence); or decreases the risk of clinically significant bleeding (one study, 84 participants, restrictive 3; liberal 8; very low-certainty evidence). No NRS reported on the other eligible outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this review were based on seven studies and 644 participants. Definite conclusions are challenging given the relatively few included studies, low number of included participants, heterogeneity of intervention and outcome reporting, and overall certainty of evidence. To increase the certainty of the true effect of a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy on clinical outcomes, there is a need for rigorously designed and executed studies. The evidence is largely based on two populations: adults with acute leukaemia receiving intensive chemotherapy and adults with haematologic malignancy requiring HSCT. Despite the addition of 405 participants from three RCTs to the previous review's results, there is still insufficient evidence to answer this review's primary outcome. If we assume a mortality rate of 3% within 100 days, we would need a total of 1492 participants to have an 80% chance of detecting, at a 5% level of significance, an increase in all-cause mortality from 3% to 6%. Further RCTs are needed overall, particularly in children.

Red Blood Cell Transfusion: 2023 AABB International Guidelines

Importance

Red blood cell transfusion is a common medical intervention with benefits and harms.

Objective

To provide recommendations for use of red blood cell transfusion in adults and children.

Evidence Review

Standards for trustworthy guidelines were followed, including using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methods, managing conflicts of interest, and making values and preferences explicit. Evidence from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials was reviewed.

Findings

For adults, 45 randomized controlled trials with 20 599 participants compared restrictive hemoglobin-based transfusion thresholds, typically 7 to 8 g/dL, with liberal transfusion thresholds of 9 to 10 g/dL. For pediatric patients, 7 randomized controlled trials with 2730 participants compared a variety of restrictive and liberal transfusion thresholds. For most patient populations, results provided moderate quality evidence that restrictive transfusion thresholds did not adversely affect patient-important outcomes. Recommendation 1: for hospitalized adult patients who are hemodynamically stable, the international panel recommends a restrictive transfusion strategy considering transfusion when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL (strong recommendation, moderate certainty evidence). In accordance with the restrictive strategy threshold used in most trials, clinicians may choose a threshold of 7.5 g/dL for patients undergoing cardiac surgery and 8 g/dL for those undergoing orthopedic surgery or those with preexisting cardiovascular disease. Recommendation 2: for hospitalized adult patients with hematologic and oncologic disorders, the panel suggests a restrictive transfusion strategy considering transfusion when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL (conditional recommendations, low certainty evidence). Recommendation 3: for critically ill children and those at risk of critical illness who are hemodynamically stable and without a hemoglobinopathy, cyanotic cardiac condition, or severe hypoxemia, the international panel recommends a restrictive transfusion strategy considering transfusion when the hemoglobin concentration is less than 7 g/dL (strong recommendation, moderate certainty evidence). Recommendation 4: for hemodynamically stable children with congenital heart disease, the international panel suggests a transfusion threshold that is based on the cardiac abnormality and stage of surgical repair: 7 g/dL (biventricular repair), 9 g/dL (single-ventricle palliation), or 7 to 9 g/dL (uncorrected congenital heart disease) (conditional recommendation, low certainty evidence).

Conclusions and Relevance

It is good practice to consider overall clinical context and alternative therapies to transfusion when making transfusion decisions about an individual patient.

Patient Blood Management after Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in a Pediatric Setting: Starting Low and Going Lower

Despite the substantial transfusion requirements, there are few studies on the optimal transfusion strategy in pediatric patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Our study aimed to retrospectively analyze red blood cell (RBC) and platelet (PLT) transfusion practices during the first 100 days after HSCT at the pediatric hematology/oncology unit of our hospital between 2016 and 2019, due to a more restrictive approach adopted after 2016. We also evaluated the impact on patient outcomes. A total of 146 consecutive HSCT patients were analyzed. In patients without hemorrhagic complications, the Hb threshold for RBC transfusions decreased significantly from 2016 to 2017 (from 7.8 g/dL to 7.3 g/dL; p = 0.010), whereas it remained the same in 2017, 2018, and 2019 (7.3, 7.2, and 7.2 g/dL, respectively). Similarly, the PLT threshold decreased significantly from 2016 to 2017 (from 18,000 to 16,000/μL; p = 0.026) and further decreased in 2019 (15,000/μL). In patients without severe hemorrhagic complications, the number of RBC and PLT transfusions remained very low over time. No increase in 100-day and 180-day non-relapse mortality or adverse events was observed during the study period. No patient died due to hemorrhagic complications. Our preliminary observations support robust studies enrolling HSCT patients in patient blood management programs.

[Rational therapy with erythrocyte concentrates - Update 2022]

The use of red blood cell concentrates must follow the dictates of a rational indication. To further ensure this, the "Cross-Sectional Guidelines for Therapy with Blood Components and Plasma Derivatives" 1 of the German Medical Association, published in 2009 and last revised in part in 2014, were systematically revised in 2020. This article presents them.

Transfusion thresholds for guiding red blood cell transfusion

BACKGROUND

The optimal haemoglobin threshold for use of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in anaemic patients remains an active field of research. Blood is a scarce resource, and in some countries, transfusions are less safe than in others because of inadequate testing for viral pathogens. If a liberal transfusion policy does not improve clinical outcomes, or if it is equivalent, then adopting a more restrictive approach could be recognised as the standard of care.  OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review update was to compare 30-day mortality and other clinical outcomes for participants randomised to restrictive versus liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion thresholds (triggers) for all clinical conditions. The restrictive transfusion threshold uses a lower haemoglobin concentration as a threshold for transfusion (most commonly, 7.0 g/dL to 8.0 g/dL), and the liberal transfusion threshold uses a higher haemoglobin concentration as a threshold for transfusion (most commonly, 9.0 g/dL to 10.0 g/dL).

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials through updated searches: CENTRAL (2020, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2020), Embase (1974 to November 2020), Transfusion Evidence Library (1950 to November 2020), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index (1990 to November 2020), and trial registries (November 2020). We  checked the reference lists of other published reviews and relevant papers to identify additional trials. We were aware of one trial identified in earlier searching that was in the process of being published (in February 2021), and we were able to include it before this review was finalised.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of surgical or medical participants that recruited adults or children, or both. We excluded studies that focused on neonates. Eligible trials assigned intervention groups on the basis of different transfusion schedules or thresholds or 'triggers'. These thresholds would be defined by a haemoglobin (Hb) or haematocrit (Hct) concentration below which an RBC transfusion would be administered; the haemoglobin concentration remains the most commonly applied marker of the need for RBC transfusion in clinical practice. We included trials in which investigators had allocated participants to higher thresholds or more liberal transfusion strategies compared to more restrictive ones, which might include no transfusion. As in previous versions of this review, we did not exclude unregistered trials published after 2010 (as per the policy of the Cochrane Injuries Group, 2015), however, we did conduct analyses to consider the differential impact of results of trials for which prospective registration could not be confirmed.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We identified trials for inclusion and extracted data using Cochrane methods. We pooled risk ratios of clinical outcomes across trials using a random-effects model. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We conducted predefined analyses by clinical subgroups. We defined participants randomly allocated to the lower transfusion threshold as being in the 'restrictive transfusion' group and those randomly allocated to the higher transfusion threshold as being in the 'liberal transfusion' group.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 48 trials, involving data from 21,433 participants (at baseline), across a range of clinical contexts (e.g. orthopaedic, cardiac, or vascular surgery; critical care; acute blood loss (including gastrointestinal bleeding); acute coronary syndrome; cancer; leukaemia; haematological malignancies), met the eligibility criteria. The haemoglobin concentration used to define the restrictive transfusion group in most trials (36) was between 7.0 g/dL and 8.0 g/dL.  Most trials included only adults; three trials focused on children. The included studies were generally at low risk of bias for key domains including allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data. Restrictive transfusion strategies reduced the risk of receiving at least one RBC transfusion by 41% across a broad range of clinical contexts (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.66; 42 studies, 20,057 participants; high-quality evidence), with a large amount of heterogeneity between trials (I² = 96%). Overall, restrictive transfusion strategies did not increase or decrease the risk of 30-day mortality compared with liberal transfusion strategies (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15; 31 studies, 16,729 participants; I² = 30%; moderate-quality evidence) or any of the other outcomes assessed (i.e. cardiac events (low-quality evidence), myocardial infarction, stroke, thromboembolism (all high-quality evidence)). High-quality evidence shows that the liberal transfusion threshold did not affect the risk of infection (pneumonia, wound infection, or bacteraemia). Transfusion-specific reactions are uncommon and were inconsistently reported within trials. We noted less certainty in the strength of evidence to support the safety of restrictive transfusion thresholds for the following predefined clinical subgroups: myocardial infarction, vascular surgery, haematological malignancies, and chronic bone-marrow disorders.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Transfusion at a restrictive haemoglobin concentration decreased the proportion of people exposed to RBC transfusion by 41% across a broad range of clinical contexts. Across all trials, no evidence suggests that a restrictive transfusion strategy impacted 30-day mortality, mortality at other time points, or morbidity (i.e. cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stroke, pneumonia, thromboembolism, infection) compared with a liberal transfusion strategy. Despite including 17 more randomised trials (and 8846 participants), data remain insufficient to inform the safety of transfusion policies in important and selected clinical contexts, such as myocardial infarction, chronic cardiovascular disease, neurological injury or traumatic brain injury, stroke, thrombocytopenia, and cancer or haematological malignancies, including chronic bone marrow failure.  Further work is needed to improve our understanding of outcomes other than mortality. Most trials compared only two separate thresholds for haemoglobin concentration, which may not identify the actual optimal threshold for transfusion in a particular patient. Haemoglobin concentration may not be the most informative marker of the need for transfusion in individual patients with different degrees of physiological adaptation to anaemia. Notwithstanding these issues, overall findings provide good evidence that transfusions with allogeneic RBCs can be avoided in most patients with haemoglobin thresholds between the range of 7.0 g/dL and 8.0 g/dL. Some patient subgroups might benefit from RBCs to maintain higher haemoglobin concentrations; research efforts should focus on these clinical contexts.

Transfusion in Pediatric Patients: Review of Evidence-Based Guidelines

Children require transfusion of blood components for a vast array of medical conditions, including acute hemorrhage, hematologic and nonhematologic malignancies, hemoglobinopathy, and allogeneic and autologous stem cell transplant. Evidence-based literature on pediatric transfusion practices is limited, particularly for non-red blood cell products, and many recommendations are extrapolated from studies in adult populations. Recognition of these knowledge gaps has led to increasing numbers of clinical trials focusing on children and establishment of pediatric transfusion working groups in recent years. This article reviews existing literature on pediatric transfusion therapy within the larger context of analogous data in adult populations.

Rationale Therapie mit Erythrozytenkonzentraten – Update 2020

Der Einsatz von Erythrozytenkonzentraten muss dem Gebot einer rationalen Indikation folgen. Um dies weiter zu gewährleisten, wurden die 2009 publizierten und zuletzt 2014 in Teilen revidierten „Querschnitts-Leitlinien zur Therapie mit Blutkomponenten und Plasmaderivaten“ 1 der Bundesärztekammer 2020 einer systematischen Novellierung unterzogen. Der Artikel stellt sie vor.

Transfusion support: Considerations in pediatric populations

Over 400,000 units of blood and blood products are transfused to pediatric patients annually, yet only sparse high-quality data exist to guide the preparation and administration of blood products in this population. The direct application of data from studies in adult patients should be undertaken with caution, as there are dissimilarities in the pathology and physiology between adult and pediatric patients. We provide an overview of available evidence in the field of pediatric transfusion medicine, summarizing indications for blood product transfusion, thresholds for transfusion and indications for blood product modifications.

Liberal Versus Restrictive Red Blood Cell Transfusion Thresholds in Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Randomized, Open Label, Phase III, Noninferiority Trial

PURPOSE

Evidence regarding red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practices and their impact on hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) outcomes are poorly understood.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a noninferiority randomized controlled trial in four different centers that evaluated patients with hematologic malignancies requiring HCT who were randomly assigned to either a restrictive (hemoglobin [Hb] threshold < 70 g/L) or liberal (Hb threshold < 90 g/L) RBC transfusion strategy between day 0 and day 100. The noninferiority margin corresponds to a 12% absolute difference between groups in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT) score relative to baseline. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measured by FACT-BMT score at day 100. Additional end points were collected: HRQOL by FACT-BMT score at baseline and at days 7, 14, 28, 60, and 100; transplantation-related mortality; length of hospital stay; intensive care unit admissions; acute graft-versus-host disease; Bearman toxicity score; sinusoidal obstruction syndrome; serious infections; WHO Bleeding Scale; transfusion requirements; and reactions to therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 300 patients were randomly assigned to either restrictive-strategy or liberal-strategy treatment groups between 2011 and 2016 at four Canadian adult HCT centers. After HCT, mean pre-transfusion Hb levels were 70.9 g/L in the restrictive-strategy group and 84.6 g/L in the liberal-strategy group (P < .0001). The number of RBC units transfused was lower in the restrictive-strategy group than in the liberal-strategy group (mean, 2.73 units [standard deviation, 4.81 units] v 5.02 units [standard deviation, 6.13 units]; P = .0004). After adjusting for transfusion type and baseline FACT-BMT score, the restrictive-strategy group had a higher FACT-BMT score at day 100 (difference of 1.6 points; 95% CI, -2.5 to 5.6 points), which was noninferior compared with that of the liberal-strategy group. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the transfusion strategies.

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing HCT, the use of a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy threshold of 70 g/L was as effective as a threshold of 90 g/L and resulted in similar HRQOL and HCT outcomes with fewer transfusions.

Hepatic sinusoidal obstruction syndrome secondary to intravesical instillation of mitomycin-C

Hepatic sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (SOS) is a life-threatening complication with high mortality rate. Even if it is more commonly described after hematopoietic stem-cell transplant, hepatic-SOS may occur following the use of certain chemotherapeutic agents. Mitomycin-C has been previously identified as a causal agent when administered intravenously at high doses. We report herein the first case of hepatic-SOS due to intravesical instillation of mitomycin-C, after a traumatic urinary catheterization with significant hematuria. Although this procedure is usually considered safe, without the systemic side effects related to intravenous administration of the drug, clinicians must be aware of its potential risks to facilitate an early diagnosis, avoid a delay in the withdrawal of the causative drug and set up an appropriate therapy as soon as possible.

Shifting ground and gaps in transfusion support of patients with hematological malignancies

The transfusion support of hematological malignancies considers 2 dimensions: the quantity of what we order (in terms of triggers, doses, targets, and intervals), and the special qualities thereof (with respect to depths of matching and appropriate product modifications). Meanwhile, transfusion-related enhancements in the quantity and quality of life may not be dose dependent but rather tempered by unintended patient harms and system strains from overexposure. Evidence and guidelines concur in endorsing clinically noninferior conservative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion care strategies (eg, triggering at hemoglobin <7-8 g/dL and in single-unit doses for stable, nonbleeding inpatients). However, the unique subpopulation of patients with hematological malignancies who are increasingly managed on an outpatient basis, and striving at least as much for quality of life as quantity of life, is left on the edges of these recommendations, with more questions than answers. If a sufficiently specific future wave of evidence can satisfy the concerns (and contest the assumptions) of the remaining proponents of liberalism, and if conservatism is broadly adopted, savings may be potentially immense. These savings can then be reinvested to address other gaps and inconsistencies in RBC transfusion care, such as the best achievable degrees of prophylactic antigen matching that can minimize alloimmunization-related service delays and reactions.

Recommendations on RBC Transfusion Support in Children With Hematologic and Oncologic Diagnoses From the Pediatric Critical Care Transfusion and Anemia Expertise Initiative

OBJECTIVES

To present the recommendations and supporting evidence for RBC transfusions in critically ill children with hematologic and oncologic disease from the Pediatric Critical Care Transfusion and Anemia Expertise Initiative.

DESIGN

Consensus conference series of international, multidisciplinary experts in RBC transfusion management of critically ill children.

METHODS

The panel of 38 experts developed evidence-based and, when evidence was lacking, expert-based clinical recommendations and research priorities for RBC transfusions in critically ill children. The hematologic/oncologic subgroup included seven experts. Electronic searches were conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from 1980 to May 2017. Agreement was obtained using the Research and Development/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Results were summarized using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method.

RESULTS

The hematologic/oncologic subgroup developed 14 recommendations (seven clinical, seven research); all achieved greater than 80% agreement. In patients with sickle cell disease, Transfusion and Anemia Expertise Initiative recommends: 1) RBC transfusion to achieve a target hemoglobin concentration of 10 g/dL rather than hemoglobin of less than 30% prior to surgical procedures requiring general anesthesia and 2) exchange transfusion over simple (nonexchange) transfusion if the child's condition is deteriorating (based on clinical judgment), otherwise a simple, nonexchange RBC transfusion is recommended. There is insufficient evidence to make recommendations on transfusion thresholds for patients with sickle cell disease prior to minor procedures, with acute stroke or with pulmonary hypertension. For patients with oncologic disease or undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant, a hemoglobin concentration of 7-8 g/dL is recommended. Due to lack of evidence, research is needed to clarify the appropriate transfusion thresholds in these patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Transfusion and Anemia Expertise Initiative developed specific pediatric recommendations regarding RBC transfusion management in critically ill children with sickle cell disease, oncologic disease, and hematopoietic stem cell transplant and recommendations to help guide future research priorities.

Management of hepatic vein occlusive disease after liver transplantation: A case report with literature review

RATIONALE

Hepatic vein occlusive disease (HVOD) is a rare complication after liver transplantation, which is characterized by nonthrombotic, fibrous obliteration of the small centrilobular hepatic veins by connective tissue and centrilobular necrosis in zone 3 of the acini. HVOD after solid organ transplantation has been reported; recently, most of these reports with limited cases have documented that acute cell rejection and immunosuppressive agents are the major causative factors. HVOD is relatively a rare complication of liver transplantation with the incidence of approximately 2%.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 59-year-old male patient with alcoholic liver cirrhosis underwent liver transplantation in our center. He suffered ascites, renal impairment 3 months after the surgery while liver enzymes were in normal range.

DIAGNOSES

Imagining and pathology showed no evidence of rejection or vessels complications. HVOD was diagnosed with pathology biopsy.

INTERVENTIONS

Tacrolimus was withdrawn and the progression of HVOD was reversed.

OUTCOMES

Now, this patient has been followed up for 6 months after discharge with normal liver graft function.

LESSONS

The use of tacrolimus in patients after liver transplantation may cause HVOD. Patients with jaundice, body weight gain, and refractory ascites should be strongly suspected of tacrolimus related HVOD.

Consensus Report by the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators and Pediatric Blood and Marrow Transplant Consortium Joint Working Committees on Supportive Care Guidelines for Management of Veno-Occlusive Disease in Children and Adolescents: Part 2-Focus on Ascites, Fluid and Electrolytes, Renal, and Transfusion Issues

Even though hepatic veno-occlusive disease (VOD) is a potentially fatal complication of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), there is paucity of research on the management of associated multiorgan dysfunction. To help provide standardized care for the management of these patients, the HCT Subgroup of the Pediatric Acute Lung Injury and Sepsis Investigators and the Supportive Care Committee of the Pediatric Blood and Marrow Transplant Consortium, collaborated to develop evidence-based consensus guidelines. After conducting an extensive literature search, in part 2 of this series we discuss the management of fluids and electrolytes, renal dysfunction; ascites, pleural effusion, and transfusion and coagulopathy issues in patients with VOD. We consider the available evidence using the GRADE criteria.

Impact of red blood cell transfusion strategies in haemato-oncological patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Haemato-oncological patients receive many red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, however evidence-based guidelines are lacking. Our aim is to quantify the effect of restrictive and liberal RBC transfusion strategies on clinical outcomes and blood use in haemato-oncological patients. A literature search, last updated on 11 August 2016, was performed in PubMed, EMBASE (Excerpta Medica Database), Web of Science, Cochrane, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and Academic Search Premier without restrictions on language and year of publication. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies that compared different RBC transfusion strategies in haemato-oncological patients were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias assessment according to the Cochrane collaboration's tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale was performed. After removing duplicates, 1142 publications were identified. Eventually, 15 studies were included, reporting on 2636 patients. The pooled relative risk for mortality was 0·68 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·46-1·01] in favour of the restrictive strategy. The mean RBC use was reduced with 1·40 units (95% CI 0·70-2·09) per transfused patient per therapy cycle in the restrictive strategy group. There were no differences in safety outcomes. All currently available evidence suggests that restrictive strategies do not have a negative impact regarding clinical outcomes in haemato-oncological patients, while it reduces RBC use and associated costs.

Restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies for people with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without haematopoietic stem cell support

BACKGROUND

Many people diagnosed with haematological malignancies experience anaemia, and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion plays an essential supportive role in their management. Different strategies have been developed for RBC transfusions. A restrictive transfusion strategy seeks to maintain a lower haemoglobin level (usually between 70 g/L to 90 g/L) with a trigger for transfusion when the haemoglobin drops below 70 g/L), whereas a liberal transfusion strategy aims to maintain a higher haemoglobin (usually between 100 g/L to 120 g/L, with a threshold for transfusion when haemoglobin drops below 100 g/L). In people undergoing surgery or who have been admitted to intensive care a restrictive transfusion strategy has been shown to be safe and in some cases safer than a liberal transfusion strategy. However, it is not known whether it is safe in people with haematological malignancies.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy and safety of restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategies for people diagnosed with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without a haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised trials (NRS) in MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1982), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 6), and 10 other databases (including four trial registries) to 15 June 2016. We also searched grey literature and contacted experts in transfusion for additional trials. There was no restriction on language, date or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs and prospective NRS that evaluated a restrictive compared with a liberal RBC transfusion strategy in children or adults with malignant haematological disorders or undergoing HSCT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified six studies eligible for inclusion in this review; five RCTs and one NRS. Three completed RCTs (156 participants), one completed NRS (84 participants), and two ongoing RCTs. We identified one additional RCT awaiting classification. The completed studies were conducted between 1997 and 2015 and had a mean follow-up from 31 days to 2 years. One study included children receiving a HSCT (six participants), the other three studies only included adults: 218 participants with acute leukaemia receiving chemotherapy, and 16 with a haematological malignancy receiving a HSCT. The restrictive strategies varied from 70 g/L to 90 g/L. The liberal strategies also varied from 80 g/L to 120 g/L.Based on the GRADE rating methodology the overall quality of the included studies was very low to low across different outcomes. None of the included studies were free from bias for all 'Risk of bias' domains. One of the three RCTs was discontinued early for safety concerns after recruiting only six children, all three participants in the liberal group developed veno-occlusive disease (VOD). Evidence from RCTsA restrictive RBC transfusion policy may make little or no difference to: the number of participants who died within 100 days (two trials, 95 participants (RR: 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.69, low-quality evidence); the number of participants who experienced any bleeding (two studies, 149 participants; RR:0.93, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.18, low-quality evidence), or clinically significant bleeding (two studies, 149 participants, RR: 1.03, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.43, low-quality evidence); the number of participants who required RBC transfusions (three trials; 155 participants: RR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.05, low-quality evidence); or the length of hospital stay (restrictive median 35.5 days (interquartile range (IQR): 31.2 to 43.8); liberal 36 days (IQR: 29.2 to 44), low-quality evidence).We are uncertain whether the restrictive RBC transfusion strategy: decreases quality of life (one trial, 89 participants, fatigue score: restrictive median 4.8 (IQR 4 to 5.2); liberal median 4.5 (IQR 3.6 to 5) (very low-quality evidence); or reduces the risk of developing any serious infection (one study, 89 participants, RR: 1.23, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.04, very low-quality evidence).A restrictive RBC transfusion policy may reduce the number of RBC transfusions per participant (two trials; 95 participants; mean difference (MD) -3.58, 95% CI -5.66 to -1.49, low-quality evidence). Evidence from NRSWe are uncertain whether the restrictive RBC transfusion strategy: reduces the risk of death within 100 days (one study, 84 participants, restrictive 1 death; liberal 1 death; very low-quality evidence); decreases the risk of clinically significant bleeding (one study, 84 participants, restrictive 3; liberal 8; very low-quality evidence); or decreases the number of RBC transfusions (adjusted for age, sex and acute myeloid leukaemia type geometric mean 1.25; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.47 - data analysis performed by the study authors)No NRS were found that looked at: quality of life; number of participants with any bleeding; serious infection; or length of hospital stay.No studies were found that looked at: adverse transfusion reactions; arterial or venous thromboembolic events; length of intensive care admission; or readmission to hospital.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this review were based on four studies and 240 participants.There is low-quality evidence that a restrictive RBC transfusion policy reduces the number of RBC transfusions per participant. There is low-quality evidence that a restrictive RBC transfusion policy has little or no effect on: mortality at 30 to 100 days, bleeding, or hospital stay. This evidence is mainly based on adults with acute leukaemia who are having chemotherapy. Although, the two ongoing studies (530 participants) are due to be completed by January 2018 and will provide additional information for adults with haematological malignancies, we will not be able to answer this review's primary outcome. If we assume a mortality rate of 3% within 100 days we would need 1492 participants to have a 80% chance of detecting, as significant at the 5% level, an increase in all-cause mortality from 3% to 6%. Further RCTs are required in children.

Outcomes of allogeneic stem cell transplantation among patients with acute myeloid leukemia presenting active disease: Experience of a single European Comprehensive Cancer Center

Introduction:

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (ASCT) representes a potentially curative approach for patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We report the outcome of relapsed/refractory AML patients treated with ASCT.

Method:

A retrospective cohort from 1994 to 2013 that included 61 patients with diagnosis of relapsed/refractory AML. Outcomes of interest were transplant-related mortality (TRM), incidence of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), relapse incidence, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.

Results:

The median age was 61 years (range 1 to 65). The cumulative incidence of 90 days, 1 year, and 3 years TRM were 60%, 26.7%, and 13.3%, respectively (p<0.001). The incidence of relapse was 21.7% at 1 year, 13% at 3 years, and 8.7% at 5 years. Median OS was estimated to be 8 months (95CI 3.266-12.734) and median PFS, 3 months (95CI 1.835-4.165).

Conclusion:

In our cohort, TRM in first years after ASCT remains considerable, but ASCT in this setting seems to be a good choice for AML patients with active disease. However, novel approaches are needed to reduce TRM and relapse in this set of patients.

Blood transfusion in hematologic intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

There is increasing evidence that excessive blood transfusion may be associated with impaired survival or cardiovascular events. One way to reduce the number of red blood cells (RBCs) is to transfuse 1 unit (1RBC) instead of 2 units of RBCs (2RBC).

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients requiring blood transfusions in hematologic intensive care unit were included in a prospective study using a single RBC unit per transfusion and were compared with an historical cohort who received 2 RBC units per transfusion.

RESULTS

A total of 1323 units were transfused to 126 patients between 2013 and 2014. The 186 patients in the comparative cohort received a total of 1824 RBC units in a 2-RBC-unit policy between 2010 and 2012. The mean number of units was 7.35 (SD, 5.9 units; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5-8.2 units) in the 1RBC group and 8.14 units (SD, 6.2 units; 95% CI, 7.3-8.9 units) in the 2RBC group. The absolute mean difference was -0.79 (95% CI, -1.98 to 0.40; p = 0.09). In the 1RBC allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) subgroup, a significant reduction in the number of RBC units transfused was observed in comparison with the historical 2RBC allo-HSCT group (5 units vs. 7.7 units; p = 0.01). No anemia-related side effects were reported. Overall survival did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

The 1RBC transfusion policy made is feasible in patients with transient hematologic toxicity after chemotherapy. The number of units transfused between the two groups was not different. However, in the allo-HSCT group, the use of a single RBC unit reduced significantly RBC consumption. A randomized trial comparing the two strategies is planned with a medicoeconomic evaluation.

Association between delivery methods for red blood cell transfusion and the risk of venous thromboembolism: a longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

Mechanisms of red blood cell delivery and their contribution to the incidence of venous thromboembolism are not well understood in the clinical setting. We assessed whether red blood cell transfusion through peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) affects the risk of venous thromboembolism compared with transfusion through non-PICC devices.

METHODS

We implemented a prospective study between Jan 1, 2013, and Sept 12, 2015, in patients (age ≥18 years) admitted to a general medicine ward or intensive care unit who received a PICC for any reason during clinical care in 47 hospitals in Michigan, USA, with a maximum follow-up of 70 days. The exposure of interest was route of red blood cell transfusion. The primary outcome was symptomatic, radiographically confirmed, deep-vein thrombosis in the arm or leg or pulmonary embolism. We used Cox proportional hazards regression for analyses.

FINDINGS

Venous thromboembolism developed in 482 (5%) of 10 604 patients with PICCs. Of 788 patients who received a red blood cell transfusion through a multi-lumen PICC, 61 had venous thromboembolism. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for venous thromboembolism in all patients whose transfusions were administered through a multi-lumen PICC was 1·96 (95% CI 1·47-2·61; p<0·0001) compared with patients not receiving a transfusion, and was 1·79 (1·09-2·95; p=0·022) compared with patients transfused through a peripheral intravenous line. Compared with delivery through a peripheral intravenous line, venous thromboembolism risk was not elevated if transfusions were delivered through a single-lumen PICC (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·44-2·14; p=0·95) or central venous catheter (1·50, 0·77-2·91; p=0·23). For every red blood cell unit transfused through a PICC, there was a significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism (adjusted HR 1·24, 95% CI 1·01-1·52; p=0·037). Patients who received a transfusion through a PICC in the left arm were significantly more likely to develop a deep-vein thrombosis in the ipsilateral arm compared with the contralateral side (HR 23·44, 95% CI 2·96-185·83; p=0·0028). Similarly, patients transfused through a right-sided PICC were more likely to develop deep-vein thrombosis in the ipsilateral arm (HR 3·37, 95% CI 1·02-11·14; p=0·047).

INTERPRETATION

Red blood cell delivery through a multi-lumen PICC is associated with a greater risk of thrombosis than transfusion through a peripheral intravenous catheter. Careful monitoring for venous thromboembolism when transfusing red blood cells through multi-lumen PICCs seems necessary.

FUNDING

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network, as part of the BCBSM Value Partnerships program.

Red blood cell transfusion for hematologic disorders

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have determined, in surgical and critically ill patients, relatively safe hemoglobin (Hb) thresholds of 7-8 g/dL to guide restrictive transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs). However, in patients with various hematologic disorders, strong evidence in support of such an approach is sparse and the optimal transfusion practice is yet to be defined. This review focuses on RBC transfusion practice in three hematologic diseases and a treatment strategy, including autoimmune hemolytic anemia, thalassemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. These entities manifest in a broad spectrum of anemia, acute or chronic, in patients with different comorbidities and degrees of transfusion requirement. Thus the nuances in the indications of RBC transfusion and the goals to achieve in these specific situations may have been underappreciated. The limited data available highlight the importance of titrating RBC transfusion based on the clinical context and patient characteristics. Future RCTs are necessary to firmly establish the Hb thresholds associated with improved outcomes relevant to these specific patient populations, which will facilitate the personalized decision-making in RBC transfusion.

Transfusion strategy in hematological intensive care unit: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion is required in hematology patients treated with chemotherapy for acute leukemia, autologous (auto) or allogeneic (allo) hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). In certain situations like septic shock, hip surgery, coronary disease or gastrointestinal hemorrhage, a restrictive transfusion strategy is associated with a reduction of infection and death. A transfusion strategy using a single PRBC unit has been retrospectively investigated and showed a safe reduction of PRBC consumption and costs. We therefore designed a study to prospectively demonstrate that the transfusion of a single PRBC unit is safe and not inferior to standard care.

METHODS

The 1versus2 trial is a randomized trial which will determine if a single-unit transfusion policy is not inferior to a double-unit transfusion policy. The primary endpoint is the incidence of severe complication (grade ≥ 3) defined as stroke, transient ischemic attack, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, elevated troponin level, intensive care unit transfer, death, new pulmonary infiltrates, and transfusion-related infections during hospital stays. The secondary endpoint is the number of PRBC units transfused per patient per hospital stay. Two hundred and thirty patients will be randomized to receive a single unit or double unit every time the hemoglobin level is less than 8 g/dL. All patients admitted for induction remission chemotherapy, auto-HSCT or allo-HSCT in hematology intensive care units will be eligible for inclusion. Sample size calculation has determined that a patient population of 230 will be required to prove that the 1-unit PRBC strategy is non-inferior to the 2-unit PRBC strategy. Hemoglobin threshold for transfusion is below 8 g/dL. Estimated percentage of complication-free hospital stays is 93 %. In a non-inferiority hypothesis, the number of patients to include is 230 with a power of 90 % and an alpha risk of 5 %.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

14-128; Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02461264 (registered on 3 June 2015).

Comparison of a restrictive versus liberal red cell transfusion policy for patients with myelodysplasia, aplastic anaemia, and other congenital bone marrow failure disorders

BACKGROUND

Bone marrow failure disorders include a heterogenous group of disorders, of which myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), forms the largest subgroup. MDS is predominantly a disease of the elderly, with many elderly people managed conservatively with regular allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusions to treat their anaemia. However, RBC transfusions are not without risk. Despite regular transfusions playing a central role in treating such patients, the optimal RBC transfusion strategy (restrictive versus liberal) is currently unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of a restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion strategy for patients with myelodysplasia, acquired aplastic anaemia, and other inherited bone marrow failure disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 4), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946), Ovid EMBASE (from 1974), EBSCO CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980) and ongoing trial databases to 26th May 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs including patients with long-term bone marrow failure disorders that require allogeneic blood transfusion, who are not being actively treated with a haematopoietic stem cell transplant, or intensive chemotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane review methodology. One author initially screened all references, and excluded any that were clearly irrelevant or duplicates. Two authors then independently screened all abstracts of articles, identified by the review search strategy, for relevancy. Two authors independently assessed the full text of all potentially relevant articles for eligibility, completed the data extraction and assessed the studies for risk of bias using The Cochrane Collaboration's 'Risk of bias' tool.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one trial (13 participants) and identified three ongoing trials that assess RBC transfusion strategies in people with MDS.The quality of the evidence was very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology.The one included study randomised participants to a restrictive [haemoglobin (Hb) transfusion trigger < 72 g/L, 8 participants] or liberal [Hb trigger < 96 g/L, 5 participants] transfusion policy. There was insufficient evidence to determine a difference in all-cause mortality (1 RCT; 13 participants; RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.32; very low quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine a difference in the number of red blood cell transfusions (1 RCT; 13 participants; 1.8 units per patient per month in the liberal group, compared to 0.8 in the restrictive arm, no standard deviation was reported; very low quality evidence). There were no anaemia-related complications reported (cardiac failure) and no reported effect on activity levels (no statistics provided). The study did not report: mortality due to bleeding/infection/transfusion reactions or iron overload, quality of life, frequency and length of hospital admissions, serious infections (requiring admission to hospital), or serious bleeding (e.g. WHO/CTCAE grade 3 (or equivalent) or above).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review indicates that there is currently a lack of evidence for the recommendation of a particular transfusion strategy for bone marrow failure patients undergoing supportive treatment only. The one RCT included in this review was only published as an abstract and contained only 13 participants. Further randomised trials with robust methodology are required to develop the optimal transfusion strategy for such patients, particularly as the incidence of the main group of bone marrow failure disorders, MDS, rises with an ageing population.