Bell Edward F, Strauss Ronald G, Widness John A, Mahoney Larry T, Mock Donald M, Seward Victoria J, Cress Gretchen A, Johnson Karen J, Kromer Irma J, Zimmerman M Bridget
Department of Pediatrics, University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
Pediatrics. 2005 Jun;115(6):1685-91. doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-1884.
Although many centers have introduced more restrictive transfusion policies for preterm infants in recent years, the benefits and adverse consequences of allowing lower hematocrit levels have not been systematically evaluated. The objective of this study was to determine if restrictive guidelines for red blood cell (RBC) transfusions for preterm infants can reduce the number of transfusions without adverse consequences.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We enrolled 100 hospitalized preterm infants with birth weights of 500 to 1300 g into a randomized clinical trial comparing 2 levels of hematocrit threshold for RBC transfusion.
The infants were assigned randomly to either the liberal- or the restrictive-transfusion group. For each group, transfusions were given only when the hematocrit level fell below the assigned value. In each group, the transfusion threshold levels decreased with improving clinical status.
We recorded the number of transfusions, the number of donor exposures, and various clinical and physiologic outcomes.
Infants in the liberal-transfusion group received more RBC transfusions (5.2 +/- 4.5 [mean +/- SD] vs 3.3 +/- 2.9 in the restrictive-transfusion group). However, the number of donors to whom the infants were exposed was not significantly different (2.8 +/- 2.5 vs 2.2 +/- 2.0). There was no difference between the groups in the percentage of infants who avoided transfusions altogether (12% in the liberal-transfusion group versus 10% in the restrictive-transfusion group). Infants in the restrictive-transfusion group were more likely to have intraparenchymal brain hemorrhage or periventricular leukomalacia, and they had more frequent episodes of apnea, including both mild and severe episodes.
Although both transfusion programs were well tolerated, our finding of more frequent major adverse neurologic events in the restrictive RBC-transfusion group suggests that the practice of restrictive transfusions may be harmful to preterm infants.
尽管近年来许多中心对早产儿采用了更严格的输血政策,但允许更低的血细胞比容水平所带来的益处和不良后果尚未得到系统评估。本研究的目的是确定早产儿红细胞(RBC)输血的限制性指南是否能减少输血次数而无不良后果。
设计、地点和患者:我们将100名出生体重为500至1300克的住院早产儿纳入一项随机临床试验,比较两种RBC输血血细胞比容阈值水平。
婴儿被随机分配到宽松输血组或限制性输血组。对于每组,仅当血细胞比容水平低于指定值时才进行输血。在每组中,输血阈值水平随着临床状况的改善而降低。
我们记录了输血次数、接触供血者的次数以及各种临床和生理结果。
宽松输血组的婴儿接受了更多的RBC输血(5.2±4.5[平均值±标准差],而限制性输血组为3.3±2.9)。然而,婴儿接触的供血者数量没有显著差异(2.8±2.5对2.2±2.0)。两组中完全避免输血的婴儿百分比没有差异(宽松输血组为12%,限制性输血组为10%)。限制性输血组的婴儿更有可能发生脑实质内出血或脑室周围白质软化,并且他们有更频繁的呼吸暂停发作,包括轻度和重度发作。
尽管两种输血方案耐受性都良好,但我们在限制性RBC输血组中发现更频繁的主要不良神经事件表明,限制性输血做法可能对早产儿有害。