Is haemoglobin below 7.0 g/dL an optimal trigger for allogenic red blood cell transfusion in patients admitted to intensive care units? A meta-analysis and systematic review

Impact of restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy on thrombosis-related events: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is an ongoing controversy regarding the risks of restrictive and liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategies. This meta-analysis assessed whether transfusion at a lower threshold was superior to transfusion at a higher threshold, with regard to thrombosis-related events, that is, whether these outcomes can benefit from a restrictive transfusion strategy is debated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus from inception up to 31 July 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any clinical setting that evaluated the effects of restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion in adults. We used random-effects models to calculate the risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) based on pooled data.

RESULTS

Thirty RCTs involving 17,334 participants were included. The pooled RR for thromboembolic events was 0.65 (95% CI 0.44-0.94; p = 0.020; I²  = 0.0%, very low-quality evidence), favouring the restrictive strategy. There were no significant differences in cerebrovascular accidents (RR = 0.83; 95% CI 0.64-1.09; p = 0.180; I²  = 0.0%, very low-quality evidence) or myocardial infarction (RR = 1.05; 95% CI 0.87-1.26; p = 0.620; I²  = 0.0%, low-quality evidence). Subgroup analyses showed that a restrictive (relative to liberal) strategy reduced (1) thromboembolic events in RCTs conducted in North America and (2) myocardial infarctions in the subgroup of RCTs where the restrictive transfusion threshold was 7 g/dl but not in the 8 g/dl subgroup (with a liberal transfusion threshold of 10 g/dl in both subgroups).

CONCLUSIONS

A restrictive (relative to liberal) transfusion strategy may be effective in reducing venous thrombosis but not arterial thrombosis.

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.

Stability of Maleimide-PEG and Mono-Sulfone-PEG Conjugation to a Novel Engineered Cysteine in the Human Hemoglobin Alpha Subunit

In order to use a Hemoglobin Based Oxygen Carrier as an oxygen therapeutic or blood substitute, it is necessary to increase the size of the hemoglobin molecule to prevent rapid renal clearance. A common method uses maleimide PEGylation of sulfhydryls created by the reaction of 2-iminothiolane at surface lysines. However, this creates highly heterogenous mixtures of molecules. We recently engineered a hemoglobin with a single novel, reactive cysteine residue on the surface of the alpha subunit creating a single PEGylation site (βCys93Ala/αAla19Cys). This enabled homogenous PEGylation by maleimide-PEG with >80% efficiency and no discernible effect on protein function. However, maleimide-PEG adducts are subject to deconjugation via retro-Michael reactions and cross-conjugation to endogenous thiol species in vivo. We therefore compared our maleimide-PEG adduct with one created using a mono-sulfone-PEG less susceptible to deconjugation. Mono-sulfone-PEG underwent reaction at αAla19Cys hemoglobin with > 80% efficiency, although some side reactions were observed at higher PEG:hemoglobin ratios; the adduct bound oxygen with similar affinity and cooperativity as wild type hemoglobin. When directly compared to maleimide-PEG, the mono-sulfone-PEG adduct was significantly more stable when incubated at 37°C for seven days in the presence of 1 mM reduced glutathione. Hemoglobin treated with mono-sulfone-PEG retained > 90% of its conjugation, whereas for maleimide-PEG < 70% of the maleimide-PEG conjugate remained intact. Although maleimide-PEGylation is certainly stable enough for acute therapeutic use as an oxygen therapeutic, for pharmaceuticals intended for longer vascular retention (weeks-months), reagents such as mono-sulfone-PEG may be more appropriate.

Severe bleeding in the ICU

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Severe bleeding events, which require blood transfusions, are a challenge faced by many critical care physicians on a daily basis. Current transfusion guidelines generally recommend rather strict transfusion thresholds and strategies, which can appear opposing to a patient in need for urgent transfusion at first sight. Moreover, applied guidelines are lacking evidence and specificity for the typical ICU patient population and its comorbidities. Transfusion decisions, which are pivotal for clinical outcome, are often unsatisfactorily based on hemoglobin levels only.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent publications generally support previous studies that a strict transfusion regimen is superior to a liberal one for the majority of cases. Newly developed and easily feasible techniques are currently in clinical trials and have the potential to become a valuable supplementation to hemoglobin-guided decision-making. In addition to the choice of the ideal transfusion strategy, physiological status and comorbidities were found to have a major impact on the outcome of severe bleedings in the ICU.

SUMMARY

The body of evidence for ICU-specific transfusion guidelines is scarce. Critical care physicians should properly evaluate their patient's comorbidities and consider extended point-of-care testing for transfusion decisions in indistinct anemic situations. A strict transfusion strategy should, however, be applied whenever possible.