Suppr超能文献

BLood Evaluation (ABLE) 年龄随机对照试验:描述国际试验中英国资助的部分,英国成本效益分析,以及探索与 12 个月随访期间健康相关生活质量和医疗保健成本相关的次要分析。

The Age of BLood Evaluation (ABLE) randomised controlled trial: description of the UK-funded arm of the international trial, the UK cost-utility analysis and secondary analyses exploring factors associated with health-related quality of life and health-care costs during the 12-month follow-up.

机构信息

Anaesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Division of Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

Department of Haematology, Oxford University Hospitals, Oxford, UK.

出版信息

Health Technol Assess. 2017 Oct;21(62):1-118. doi: 10.3310/hta21620.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

At present, red blood cells (RBCs) are stored for up to 42 days prior to transfusion. The relative effectiveness and safety of different RBC storage times prior to transfusion is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of transfusing fresher RBCs (stored for ≤ 7 days) compared with current standard-aged RBCs in critically ill patients requiring blood transfusions.

DESIGN

The international Age of BLood Evaluation (ABLE) trial was a multicentre, randomised, blinded trial undertaken in Canada, the UK, the Netherlands and France. The UK trial was funded to contribute patients to the international trial and undertake a UK-specific health economic evaluation.

SETTING

Twenty intensive care units (ICUs) in the UK, as part of 64 international centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Critically ill patients aged ≥ 18 years (≥ 16 years in Scotland) expected to require mechanical ventilation for ≥ 48 hours and requiring a first RBC transfusion during the first 7 days in the ICU.

INTERVENTIONS

All decisions to transfuse RBCs were made by clinicians. One patient group received exclusively fresh RBCs stored for ≤ 7 days whenever transfusion was required from randomisation until hospital discharge. The other group received standard-issue RBCs throughout their hospital stay.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included development of organ dysfunction, new thrombosis, infections and transfusion reactions. The primary economic evaluation was a cost-utility analysis.

RESULTS

The international trial took place between March 2009 and October 2014 (UK recruitment took place between January 2012 and October 2014). In total, 1211 patients were assigned to receive fresh blood and 1219 patients to receive standard-aged blood. RBCs were stored for a mean of 6.1 days [standard deviation (SD) ± 4.9 days] in the group allocated to receive fresh blood and 22.0 days (SD ± 8.4 days) in the group allocated to receive standard-aged blood. Patients received a mean of 4.3 RBC units (SD ± 5.2 RBC units) and 4.3 RBC units (SD ± 5.5 RBC units) in the groups receiving fresh blood and standard-aged blood, respectively. At 90 days, 37.0% of patients in the group allocated to receive fresh blood and 35.3% of patients in the group allocated to receive standard-aged blood had died {absolute risk difference 1.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.1% to 5.5%]}. There were no between-group differences in any secondary outcomes. The UK cohort comprised 359 patients randomised and followed up for 12 months for the cost-utility analysis. UK patients had similar characteristics and outcomes to the international cohort. Mean total costs per patient were £32,346 (95% CI £29,306 to £35,385) in the group allocated to receive fresh blood and £33,353 (95% CI £29,729 to £36,978) in the group allocated to receive standard-aged blood. Approximately 85% of the total costs were incurred during the index hospital admission. There were no significant cost differences between the two groups [mean incremental costs for those receiving fresh vs. standard-aged blood: -£231 (95% CI -£4876 to £4415)], nor were there significant differences in outcomes (mean difference in quality-adjusted life-years -0.010, 95% CI -0.078 to 0.057).

LIMITATIONS

Adverse effects from the exclusive use of older RBCs compared with standard or fresh RBCs cannot be excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of RBCs aged ≤ 7 days confers no clinical or economic benefit in critically ill patients compared with standard-aged RBCs.

FUTURE WORK

Future studies should address the safety of RBCs near the end of the current permitted storage age.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN44878718.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in ; Vol. 21, No. 62. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The international ABLE trial was also supported by peer-reviewed grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (177453), Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé (24460), the French Ministry of Health Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (12.07, 2011) and by funding from Établissement Français du Sang and Sanquin Blood Supply.

摘要

背景

目前,红细胞(RBC)在输血前最多可储存 42 天。在输血前不同 RBC 储存时间的相对有效性和安全性尚不确定。

目的

评估在需要输血的危重症患者中,输注较新鲜 RBC(储存时间≤7 天)与目前标准年龄 RBC 的临床效果和成本效益。

设计

国际 Age of BLood Evaluation(ABLE)试验是一项在加拿大、英国、荷兰和法国进行的多中心、随机、双盲试验。英国的试验是为了资助贡献患者参与国际试验,并进行英国特定的健康经济评估。

地点

英国的 20 个重症监护病房(ICU),作为 64 个国际中心的一部分。

参与者

年龄≥18 岁(苏格兰≥16 岁)的危重症患者,预计需要机械通气≥48 小时,并且在 ICU 住院的前 7 天内需要进行第一次 RBC 输血。

干预措施

所有输血决定均由临床医生做出。一组患者无论何时需要输血,都专门输注储存时间≤7 天的新鲜 RBC,直到出院。另一组患者在整个住院期间输注标准的 RBC。

主要结局测量

主要结局是 90 天死亡率。次要结局包括器官功能障碍、新血栓形成、感染和输血反应的发展。主要的经济评估是成本效益分析。

结果

国际试验于 2009 年 3 月至 2014 年 10 月进行(英国招募于 2012 年 1 月至 2014 年 10 月进行)。共有 1211 名患者被分配接受新鲜血液,1219 名患者接受标准年龄的血液。输注新鲜血液的患者的 RBC 储存时间平均为 6.1 天(标准差±4.9 天),输注标准年龄血液的患者为 22.0 天(标准差±8.4 天)。接受新鲜血液和标准年龄血液的患者分别接受了平均 4.3 RBC 单位(标准差±5.2 RBC 单位)和 4.3 RBC 单位(标准差±5.5 RBC 单位)。90 天时,接受新鲜血液的患者中有 37.0%和接受标准年龄血液的患者中有 35.3%死亡(绝对风险差异 1.7%[95%置信区间(CI)-2.1%至 5.5%])。两组之间在任何次要结局上均无差异。英国队列由 359 名患者组成,随机分组并随访 12 个月进行成本效益分析。英国患者与国际队列具有相似的特征和结局。接受新鲜血液的患者的平均总费用为£32346(95%CI£29306 至 £35385),接受标准年龄血液的患者为£33353(95%CI£29729 至 £36978)。总费用的约 85%发生在索引住院期间。两组之间没有显著的成本差异(接受新鲜 vs. 标准年龄血液的平均增量成本:-£231[95%CI£-4876 至 £4415]),也没有显著的结局差异(质量调整生命年的平均差异-0.010,95%CI-0.078 至 0.057)。

局限性

不能排除与标准或新鲜 RBC 相比,单独使用较老的 RBC 会产生不良反应。

结论

与标准年龄 RBC 相比,在危重症患者中使用储存时间≤7 天的 RBC 并没有带来临床或经济上的益处。

未来工作

未来的研究应解决 RBC 接近当前允许储存年龄末期的安全性问题。

试验注册

当前对照试验 ISRCTN44878718。

资金

本项目由英国国家卫生研究院(NIHR)卫生技术评估计划资助,并将在;第 21 卷,第 62 期全文发表。有关该项目的更多信息,请访问 NIHR 期刊库网站。国际 ABLE 试验还得到了加拿大卫生研究院(177453)、魁北克健康研究基金会(24460)、法国卫生部医院临床研究计划(12.07,2011)和法国血液机构和 Sanquin 血液供应的同行评审赠款的支持。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

2
Health Economic Evaluations in Intensive Care: An Updated Systematic Review.重症监护中的卫生经济评估:一项更新的系统评价。
Crit Care Explor. 2025 Jul 16;7(7):e1288. doi: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000001288. eCollection 2025 Jul 1.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验