Henry D A, Carless P A, Moxey A J, O'Connell D, Forgie M A, Wells P S, Fergusson D
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Mater Hospital, Waratah, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, 2298.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;2001(2):CD003602. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003602.
Public concerns regarding the safety of transfused blood have prompted re-consideration of the indications for the transfusion of allogeneic red cells (blood from an unrelated donor), and a range of techniques designed to minimise transfusion requirements.
To examine the evidence for the efficacy of pre-operative autologous blood donation (PAD) in reducing the need for peri-operative allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion.
Articles were identified by: computer searches of OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Current Contents (to March 2001) and web sites of international health technology assessment agencies (to January 2001). References in the identified trials were checked and authors contacted to identify additional studies.
Randomised controlled trials with a concurrent control group in which adult patients, scheduled for non-urgent surgery, were randomised to PAD, or to a control group who did not receive the intervention.
Trial quality was assessed using criteria proposed by Schulz et al (1995) and Jadad et al (1996). The principle outcomes were: the number of patients exposed to allogeneic red blood cells, and the amount of blood transfused. Other clinical outcomes are detailed in the review.
Overall PAD reduced the risk of receiving an allogeneic blood transfusion by a relative 63% (RR=0.37: 95%CI:0.26,0.54). The absolute reduction in risk of allogeneic transfusion was 43.8% (RD=-0.438: 95%CI: -0.607,-0.268). In contrast the results show that the risk of receiving any blood transfusion (allogeneic and/or autologous) is actually increased by pre-operative autologous blood donation (RR=1.29: 95%CI: 1.12,1.48). Trials were unblinded and allocation concealment was not described in 87.5% of the trials.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Although the trials of PAD showed a reduction in the need for allogeneic blood the methodological quality of the trials was poor and the overall transfusion rates (allogeneic and/or autologous) in these trials were high, and were increased by recruitment into the PAD arms of the trials. This raises questions about the true benefit of PAD. In the absence of large, high quality trials using clinical endpoints, it is not possible to say whether the benefits of PAD outweigh the harms.
公众对输血安全的担忧促使人们重新审视异体红细胞(来自无关供体的血液)输血的适应症,以及一系列旨在尽量减少输血需求的技术。
研究术前自体献血(PAD)在减少围手术期异体红细胞(RBC)输血需求方面的疗效证据。
通过以下方式识别文章:对OVID MEDLINE、EMBASE和《现刊目次》进行计算机检索(截至2001年3月),以及对国际卫生技术评估机构的网站进行检索(截至2001年1月)。检查已识别试验中的参考文献,并与作者联系以识别其他研究。
有同期对照组的随机对照试验,其中计划进行非紧急手术的成年患者被随机分配至PAD组或未接受干预的对照组。
使用Schulz等人(1995年)和Jadad等人(1996年)提出的标准评估试验质量。主要结局为:接受异体红细胞的患者数量和输血量。其他临床结局在综述中有详细描述。
总体而言,PAD使接受异体输血的风险相对降低63%(RR = 0.37:95%CI:0.26,0.54)。异体输血风险的绝对降低率为43.8%(RD = -0.438:95%CI:-0.607,-0.268)。相比之下,结果表明术前自体献血实际上增加了接受任何输血(异体和/或自体)的风险(RR = 1.29:95%CI:1.12,1.48)。试验未设盲,87.5%的试验未描述分配隐藏情况。
尽管PAD试验显示异体输血需求有所减少,但试验的方法学质量较差,这些试验中的总体输血率(异体和/或自体)较高,且因纳入试验的PAD组而增加。这引发了对PAD真正益处的质疑。在缺乏使用临床终点的大型高质量试验的情况下,无法确定PAD的益处是否超过危害。