The end of the beginning: pre-operative intravenous iron and the PREVENTT trial

Postoperative intravenous iron to treat iron-deficiency anaemia in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a protocol for a pilot, multicentre, placebo-controlled randomized trial (the POAM trial)

Background

Iron-deficiency anaemia, occurring in 30-40% of patients undergoing cardiac surgery, is an independent risk factor for adverse outcomes. Our long-term goal is to assess if postoperative i.v. iron therapy improves clinical outcomes in patients with preoperative iron-deficiency anaemia undergoing cardiac surgery. Before conducting a definitive RCT, we first propose a multicentre pilot trial to establish the feasibility of the definitive trial.

Methods

This internal pilot, double-blinded, RCT will include three centres. Sixty adults with preoperative iron-deficiency anaemia undergoing non-emergency cardiac surgery will be randomised on postoperative day 2 or 3 to receive either blinded i.v. iron (1000 mg ferric derisomaltose) or placebo. Six weeks after surgery, patients who remain iron deficient will receive a second blinded dose of i.v. iron according to their assigned treatment arm. Patients will be followed for 12 months. Clinical practice will not be otherwise modified. For the pilot study, feasibility will be assessed through rates of enrolment, protocol deviations, and loss to follow up. For the definitive study, the primary outcome will be the number of days alive and out of hospital at 90 days after surgery.

Ethics and dissemination

The trial has been approved by the University Health Network Research Ethics Board (REB # 22-5685; approved by Clinical Trials Ontario funding on 22 December 2023) and will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practices guidelines, and regulatory requirements.

Clinical trial registration

NCT06287619.

Associations between postoperative anaemia and unplanned readmission to hospital after major surgery: a retrospective cohort study†

BACKGROUND

Anaemia following major surgery may be associated with unplanned readmission to hospital. However, the severity-response relationship between the degree of anaemia at discharge and the risk of unplanned readmission is poorly defined. We aimed to describe the severity-response relationship between haemoglobin concentration at the time of discharge and the risk of unplanned readmission in a cohort of patients undergoing different types of major surgery.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study in a single tertiary health service, including all patients who underwent major surgery (orthopaedic, abdominal, cardiac or thoracic) between 1 May 2011 and 1 February 2022. The primary outcome was unplanned readmission to hospital in the 90 days following discharge after the index surgical procedure. These complex, non-linear relationships were modelled with restricted cubic splines.

RESULTS

We identified 22,134 patients and included 14,635 in the primary analysis, of whom 1804 (12%) experienced at least one unplanned readmission. The odds of unplanned readmission rose when the discharge haemoglobin concentration was < 100 g.l-1 (p < 0.001). On subgroup analysis, the haemoglobin threshold below which odds of readmission began to increase appeared to be higher in patients undergoing emergency surgery (110 g.l-1; p < 0.001) compared with elective surgery. Declining discharge haemoglobin concentration was associated with increased odds ratios (95%CI) of unplanned readmission in patients undergoing orthopaedic (1.08 (1.01-1.15), p = 0.03), abdominal (1.13 (1.07-1.19), p < 0.001) and thoracic (1.12 (1.01-1.24), p = 0.03) procedures, but not cardiac surgery (1.09 (0.99-1.19), p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that a haemoglobin concentration < 100 g.l-1 following elective procedures and < 110 g.l-1 following emergency procedures, at the time of hospital discharge after major surgery, was associated with unplanned readmission. Future interventional trials that aim to treat postoperative anaemia and reduce unplanned readmission should include patients with discharge haemoglobin below these thresholds.

Pre-operative anemia and peri-operative transfusion are associated with poor oncologic outcomes in cancers of the esophagus: potential impact of patient blood management on cancer outcomes

BACKGROUND

Both Red Blood Cell (RBC) transfusion and anemia are thought to negatively impact cancer survival. These effects have been reported with mixed findings in cancer of the esophagus. The potential impact of the application of restrictive transfusion strategies on this patient population has not been defined.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of esophagectomies and studied cases based on whether they were anemic or were transfused peri-operatively. Clinical characteristics and known clinicopathologic prognosticators were compared between these groups. Survival was compared by Cox proportional hazard modeling. Post-operative transfusions were assessed for compliance with restrictive transfusion thresholds.

RESULTS

Three-hundred ninety-nine esophagectomy cases were reviewed and after exclusions 348 cases were analyzed. The median length of follow-up was 33 months (range 1-152 months). Sixty-four percent of patients were anemic pre-operatively and 22% were transfused. Transfusion and anemia were closely related to each other. Microcytic anemia was uncommon but was evaluated and treated in only 50% of cases. Most anemic patients had normocytic RBC parameters. Transfusion but not anemia was associated with a protracted/prolonged post-operative stay. Transfusion and anemia were both associated with reduced survival however only anemia was associated with decreased survival in multi-variable modeling. Sixty-eight percent of patients were transfused post-operatively and 11% were compliant with the restrictive threshold of 7 g/dL.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-operative anemia and transfusion are closely associated, however only anemia was found to compromise survival in our esophageal cancer cohort, supporting the need for more aggressive evaluation and treatment of anemia. Adherence to restrictive transfusion guidelines offers an opportunity to reduce transfusion rates which may also improve short-term outcomes.

Perioperative changes in haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations from preoperative intravenous iron isomaltoside for iron deficiency anaemia in patients with colorectal cancer: A pilot randomised controlled trial

Background

Patients with colorectal cancer have a high risk of iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) due to chronic tumour induced blood loss, a reduced dietary iron intake from poor nutrition or gastrointestinal malabsorption. This pilot, double blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) examined the effect and feasibility of using preoperative iron isomaltoside for treating iron deficiency anaemia.

Methods

Forty eligible adults with IDA were randomised to receive either intravenous iron isomaltoside (20 mg.kg^-1 up to 1000 mg over 30 minutes) or usual preoperative care (control) three weeks before scheduled colorectal surgery. The primary outcomes were perioperative changes in haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations.

Results

The recruitment rate was 78% of all eligible referred patients (1.9 patients/month). The haemoglobin and ferritin concentrations were higher in the iron isomaltoside group than the control group over the perioperative period (group*time interaction P = 0.042 and P < 0.001 respectively). Mean haemoglobin change from baseline to before surgery was higher in the iron isomaltoside group (7.8, 95% CI: 3.2 to 12.3 g.l^-1) than the control group (1.7, 95% CI: -1.9 to 5.3 g.l^-1) [mean difference 6.1, 95% CI: 0.3 to 11.8 g.l^-1; P = 0.040]. The ferritin change from baseline to before surgery between groups was large in favour of the iron isomaltoside group (mean difference 296.9, 95% CI: 200.6 to 393.2 μg.l^-1; P < 0.001]. There were no differences between groups in packed red blood cell transfusions needed, surgical complications, quality of recovery and days (alive and) at home within 30 days after surgery.

Conclusion

Iron isomaltoside therapy was safe and had a minimal effect on perioperative changes in haemoglobin concentration. Given the slow recruitment and new evidence emerging during the conduct of this study, conducting a multi-centre RCT based on the current pilot trial protocol is unlikely to be feasible.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03565354.

Hematinic and Iron Optimization in Peri-operative Anemia and Iron Deficiency

Purpose of Review

Preoperative anemia is independently associated with worse postoperative outcomes following cardiac and noncardiac surgery. This article explores the current understanding of perioperative anemia and iron deficiency with reference to definition, diagnosis, and treatment.

Recent Findings

Iron deficiency is the most common cause of anemia. It can arise from reduced iron intake, poor absorption, or excess iron loss. Inflammation throughout the preoperative period can drive iron sequestration, leading to a functional deficiency of iron and the development of what was referred to until recently as the “anemia of chronic disease.” Current best practice guidance supports the routine administration of preoperative intravenous iron to treat anemia despite limited evidence. This “one size fits all” approach has been called into question following results from a recent large, randomized trial (the PREVENTT trial) that assessed the use of a single dose of intravenous iron compared to placebo 10–42 days before major abdominal surgery. Although there were no improvements in patient-centered outcomes apparent during the initial hospital stay, secondary endpoints of this trial suggested there may be some late benefit after discharge from the hospital (8 weeks postoperatively). This trial raises questions on (1) the mechanisms of iron deficiency in the perioperative patient; (2) the need to reassess our opinions on generic anemia management; and (3) the need to address patient outcomes after discharge from hospital.

Summary

Despite the known associations between preoperative anemia (particularly iron deficiency anemia) and poor postoperative outcome, recent evidence suggests that administering intravenous iron relatively close to surgery does not yield a tangible short-term benefit. This is made more complex by the interplay between iron and innate immunity. Iron deficiency irrespective of hemoglobin concentration may also impact postoperative outcomes. Therefore, further research into associations between iron deficiency and postoperative outcomes, and between postoperative anemia, delayed outcomes (hospital readmission), and the efficacy of postoperative intravenous iron is required.

Risk of Infection Associated With Administration of Intravenous Iron: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Intravenous iron is recommended by many clinical guidelines based largely on its effectiveness in reducing anemia. However, the association with important safety outcomes, such as infection, remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the risk of infection associated with intravenous iron compared with oral iron or no iron.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from 1966 to January 31, 2021. Ongoing trials were sought from ClinicalTrials.gov, CENTRAL, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Search Registry Platform.

STUDY SELECTION

Pairs of reviewers identified RCTs that compared intravenous iron with oral iron or no iron across all patient populations, excluding healthy volunteers. Nonrandomized studies published since January 1, 2007, were also included. A total of 312 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane recommendations, and the quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Two reviewers extracted data independently. A random-effects model was used to synthesize data from RCTs. A narrative synthesis was performed to characterize the reporting of infection.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was risk of infection. Secondary outcomes included mortality, hospital length of stay, and changes in hemoglobin and red blood cell transfusion requirements. Measures of association were reported as risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences.

RESULTS

A total of 154 RCTs (32 920 participants) were included in the main analysis. Intravenous iron was associated with an increased risk of infection when compared with oral iron or no iron (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.31; I2 = 37%; moderate certainty of evidence). Intravenous iron also was associated with an increase in hemoglobin (mean difference, 0.57 g/dL; 95% CI, 0.50-0.64 g/dL; I2 = 94%) and a reduction in the risk of requiring a red blood cell transfusion (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-0.89; I2 = 15%) when compared with oral iron or no iron. There was no evidence of an effect on mortality or hospital length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this large systematic review and meta-analysis, intravenous iron was associated with an increased risk of infection. Well-designed studies, using standardized definitions of infection, are required to understand the balance between this risk and the potential benefits.