Should Transfusion Trigger Thresholds Differ for Critical Care Versus Perioperative Patients? A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objective:

To address the significant uncertainty as to whether transfusion thresholds for critical care versus surgical patients should differ.

Design:

Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Setting:

Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library searches were performed up to 15 June 2016.

Patients:

Trials had to enroll adult surgical or critically ill patients for inclusion.

Interventions:

Studies had to compare a liberal versus restrictive threshold for the transfusion of allogeneic packed RBCs.

Measurements and Main Results:

The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality, sub-grouped by surgical and critical care patients. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, allogeneic blood exposure, and length of stay. Odds ratios and weighted mean differences were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. To assess whether subgroups were significantly different, tests for subgroup interaction were used. Subgroup analysis by trials enrolling critically ill versus surgical patients was performed. Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials (10,797 patients) were included. In critical care patients, restrictive transfusion resulted in significantly reduced 30-day mortality compared with liberal transfusion (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70–0.97). In surgical patients, a restrictive transfusion strategy led to the opposite direction of effect for mortality (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.94–1.82). The subgroup interaction test was significant (p = 0.04), suggesting that the effect of restrictive transfusion on mortality is statistically different for critical care (decreased risk) versus surgical patients (potentially increased risk or no difference). Regarding secondary outcomes, for critically ill patients, a restrictive strategy resulted in reduced risk of stroke/transient ischemic attack, packed RBC exposure, transfusion reactions, and hospital length of stay. In surgical patients, restrictive transfusion resulted in reduced packed RBC exposure.

Conclusions:

The safety of restrictive transfusion strategies likely differs for critically ill patients versus perioperative patients. Further trials investigating transfusion strategies in the perioperative setting are necessary.

Restrictive versus Liberal Transfusion Strategy in the Perioperative and Acute Care Settings

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.

Blood Conservation in Cardiac Surgery

Blood transfusion is the most common procedure in cardiac surgery. Increasing evidence exists that excess transfusions are harmful to patients. Transfusion reactions and complications, including infection, immune modulation, and lung injury, are known complications but underreported; hence, their significance is often disregarded. Furthermore, a number of randomized trials have shown that a restrictive transfusion strategy is equal to if not better than a liberal transfusion strategy. Despite the evidence for the use of restrictive transfusion triggers, its dissemination in the cardiac surgical community has met with resistance. In this review, we outline the risks of transfusion, compare restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies in cardiac surgery, and finally outline perioperative interventions to minimize transfusion in the cardiac surgical patient.

Transfusion triggers for guiding RBC transfusion for cardiovascular surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis*

OBJECTIVE

Restrictive red cell transfusion is recommended to minimize risk associated with exposure to allogeneic blood. However, perioperative anemia is an independent risk factor for adverse outcomes after cardiovascular surgery. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine whether perioperative restrictive transfusion thresholds are associated with inferior clinical outcomes in randomized trials of cardiovascular surgery patients.

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to October 2013; reference lists of published guidelines, reviews, and associated articles, as well as conference proceedings. No language restrictions were applied.

STUDY SELECTION

We included controlled trials in which adult patients undergoing cardiac or vascular surgery were randomized to different transfusion thresholds, described as a hemoglobin or hematocrit level below which RBCs were transfused.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently extracted data from included trials. We pooled risk ratios of dichotomous outcomes and mean differences of continuous outcomes across trials using random-effects models.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Seven studies (enrolling 1,262 participants) met inclusion criteria with restrictive and liberal transfusion thresholds most commonly differing by a hemoglobin of 1 g/dL or hematocrit of 6-7%, resulting in decreased transfusions by 0.71 units of RBCs (95% CI, 0.31-1.09, p = 0.0002) without an associated change in adverse events: mortality (risk ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.65-1.95; p = 0.60), myocardial infarction (risk ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.30-2.99; p = 0.92), stroke (risk ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.57-2.32; p = 0.70), acute renal failure (risk ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.64-1.49; p = 0.91), infections (risk ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.85-1.78; p = 0.27), or length of stay. There was no between-trial heterogeneity for any pooled analysis. Including four pediatric trials (456 participants) and 10 trials utilizing only intraoperative acute normovolemic hemodilution (872 participants) did not substantially change the results except that unlike the transfusion threshold trials, the hemodilution trials did not reduce the proportion of patients transfused (interaction p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to determine the optimal transfusion strategy for patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery.

Transfusion thresholds and other strategies for guiding allogeneic red blood cell transfusion

BACKGROUND

Most clinical practice guidelines recommend restrictive red cell transfusion practices, with the goal of minimising exposure to allogeneic blood (from an unrelated donor). The purpose of this review is to compare clinical outcomes in patients randomised to restrictive versus liberal transfusion thresholds (triggers).

OBJECTIVES

To examine the evidence for the effect of transfusion thresholds on the use of allogeneic and/or autologous blood, and the evidence for any effect on clinical outcomes.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified by: computer searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2009), OVID MEDLINE (1966 to August 2009), Current Contents (1993 to November 2004), and the Web of Science (2004 to August 2009). References in identified trials and review articles were checked and experts contacted to identify any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Controlled trials in which patients were randomised to an intervention group or to a control group. Trials were included where intervention groups were assigned on the basis of a clear transfusion 'trigger', described as a haemoglobin (Hb) or haematocrit (Hct) level below which an RBC transfusion was to be administered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Relative risks of requiring allogeneic blood transfusion, transfused blood volumes and other clinical outcomes were pooled across trials, using a random effects model. The risk of bias was assessed.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen trials involving a total of 3746 patients were identified. Restrictive transfusion strategies reduced the risk of receiving a red blood cell (RBC) transfusion by a relative 37% (RR=0.63; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.74). This equates to an average absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 33% (95% CI 21% to 45%). The volume of RBCs transfused was reduced on average by 0.75 units (95% CI 0.20 to 1.30 units). However, heterogeneity between trials was statistically significant (P<0.001; I²≥74%) for these outcomes. Restrictive transfusion strategies did not appear to impact on the rate of adverse events compared to liberal transfusion strategies (i.e. mortality, cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stroke, pneumonia and thromboembolism). Restrictive transfusion strategies were associated with a statistically significant reduction in the rates of infection (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97). The use of restrictive transfusion strategies did not reduce hospital or intensive care length of stay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The existing evidence supports the use of restrictive transfusion triggers in patients who are free of serious cardiac disease. The effects of conservative transfusion triggers on functional status, morbidity and mortality, particularly in patients with cardiac disease, need to be tested in further large clinical trials. In countries with inadequate screening of donor blood, the data may constitute a stronger basis for avoiding transfusion with allogeneic red cells.