Restrictive blood transfusion – is less really more?

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.

Effect of low vs high haemoglobin transfusion trigger on cardiac output in patients undergoing elective vascular surgery: Post-hoc analysis of a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

During vascular surgery, restricted red-cell transfusion reduces frontal lobe oxygen (ScO₂ ) saturation as determined by near-infrared spectroscopy. We evaluated whether inadequate increase in cardiac output (CO) following haemodilution explains reduction in ScO₂ .

METHODS

This is a post-hoc analysis of data from the Transfusion in Vascular surgery (TV) Trial where patients were randomized on haemoglobin drop below 9.7 g/dL to red-cell transfusion at haemoglobin below 8.0 (low-trigger) vs 9.7 g/dL (high-trigger). Fluid administration was guided by optimizing stroke volume. We compared mean intraoperative levels of CO, haemoglobin, oxygen delivery, and CO at nadir ScO₂ with linear regression adjusted for age, operation type and baseline. Data for 46 patients randomized before end of surgery were included for analysis.

RESULTS

The low-trigger resulted in a 7.1% lower mean intraoperative haemoglobin level (mean difference, -0.74 g/dL; P < .001) and reduced volume of red-cell transfused (median [inter-quartile range], 0 [0-300] vs 450 mL [300-675]; P < .001) compared with the high-trigger group. Mean CO during surgery was numerically 7.3% higher in the low-trigger compared with the high-trigger group (mean difference, 0.36 L/min; 95% confidence interval (CI.95), -0.05 to 0.78; P = .092; n = 42). At the nadir ScO₂ -level, CO was 11.9% higher in the low-trigger group (mean difference, 0.58 L/min; CI.95, 0.10-1.07; P = .024). No difference in oxygen delivery was detected between trial groups (MD, 1.39 dL_O2 /min; CI.95, -6.16 to 8.93; P = .721).

CONCLUSION

Vascular surgical patients exposed to restrictive RBC transfusion elicit the expected increase in CO making it unlikely that their potentially limited cardiac capacity explains the associated ScO₂ decrease.

Transfusion in critical care: Past, present and future

Anaemia and coagulopathy are common in critically ill patients and are associated with poor outcomes, including increased risk of mortality, myocardial infarction, failure to be liberated from mechanical ventilation and poor physical recovery. Transfusion of blood and blood products remains the corner stone of anaemia and coagulopathy treatment in critical care. However, determining when the benefits of transfusion outweigh the risks of anaemia may be challenging in some critically ill patients. Therefore, the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine prioritised the development of a clinical practice guideline to address anaemia and coagulopathy in non-bleeding critically ill patients. The aims of this article are to: (1) review the evolution of transfusion practice in critical care and the direction for future developments in this important area of transfusion medicine and (2) to provide a brief synopsis of the guideline development process and recommendations in a format designed for busy clinicians and blood bank staff. These clinical practice guidelines provide recommendations to clinicians on how best to manage non-bleeding critically ill patients at the bedside. More research is needed on alternative transfusion targets, use of transfusions in special populations (e.g., acute neurological injury, acute coronary syndromes), use of anaemia prevention strategies and point-of-care interventions to guide transfusion strategies.