Zhang Wei, Zheng Yan, Yu Kun, Gu Juan
Department of Critical Care Medicine, Affiliated Hospital of Zunyi Medical University, Zunyi, China.
Department of Ultrasound Medicine, Linyi City People's Hospital, Shandong, China.
Transfus Med Hemother. 2021 Feb;48(1):60-68. doi: 10.1159/000506751. Epub 2020 Mar 20.
We aimed to determine whether the restrictive red-cell transfusion strategy was superior to the liberal one in reducing all-cause mortality in critically ill adults.
The MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to January 2019 to identify meta-analyses or systematic reviews and published randomized controlled trials which were restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion with mortality as the endpoint in critically ill adults. We used two search routes whereby one search was restricted to systematic reviews, reviews, or meta-analysis, and the other was not restricted. There were no date restrictions, but language was limited to English and the population was restricted to critically ill adults. The data of study methods, participant characteristics, and outcomes were extracted and analyzed independently by 2 reviewers. The main outcome was all-cause mortality.
Through screening the obtained records, we enrolled 7 randomized clinical trials that included information on restrictive versus liberal red-cell transfusion and mortality of intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Involving a total of 7,363 ICU adult patients, ICU mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62, 1.08, = 0.15), 28/30-day mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.84, 1.13, = 0.74), 60-day mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87, 1.16, = 0.91), 90-day mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.92, 1.14, = 0.69), 120-day mortality (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.67, 2.47, = 0.44), and 180-day mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75, 1.12, = 0.38) were not statistically significantly different when the restrictive transfusion strategy was compared with the liberal transfusion strategy. However, we surprisingly discovered that 112 out of 469 (24%) patients who received a unit RBC transfusion when hemoglobin was less than 7 g/dL, and 142 out of 469 (30.3%) who received a unit of RBC transfused with hemoglobin less than 9 g/dL, had died during hospitalization (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64, 0.97, = 0.03). The results showed that the restrictive transfusion strategy could decrease in-hospital mortality compared with the liberal transfusion strategy. It was safe to utilize a restrictive transfusion threshold of less than 7 g/dL in stable critically ill adults.
In this study, we found that the restrictive red-cell transfusion strategy potentially reduced in-hospital mortality in critically ill adults with anemia compared with the liberal strategy.
我们旨在确定在降低危重症成年患者的全因死亡率方面,限制性红细胞输血策略是否优于宽松输血策略。
检索MEDLINE、EMBASE、PubMed、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆临床试验中央注册库数据库,检索时间从建库至2019年1月,以识别荟萃分析或系统评价以及已发表的随机对照试验,这些研究为危重症成年患者中以死亡率为终点的限制性与宽松性输血比较。我们采用两种检索途径,一种检索限于系统评价、综述或荟萃分析,另一种检索无限制。无日期限制,但语言限于英语,研究对象限于危重症成年患者。研究方法、参与者特征和结局的数据由2名审阅者独立提取和分析。主要结局为全因死亡率。
通过筛选获取的记录,我们纳入了7项随机临床试验,这些试验包含了关于限制性与宽松性红细胞输血以及重症监护病房(ICU)患者死亡率的信息。总共涉及7363例ICU成年患者,当比较限制性输血策略与宽松输血策略时,ICU死亡率(风险比[RR]0.82,95%置信区间[CI]0.62,1.08,P = 0.15)、28/30天死亡率(RR 0.98,95%CI 0.84,1.13,P = 0.74)、60天死亡率(RR 1.01,95%CI 0.87,1.16,P = 0.91)、90天死亡率(RR 1.02,95%CI 0.92,1.14,P = 0.69)、120天死亡率(RR 1.29,95%CI 0.67,2.47,P = 0.44)和180天死亡率(RR 0.91,95%CI 0.75,1.12,P = 0.38)均无统计学显著差异。然而,我们意外地发现,血红蛋白低于7 g/dL时接受1单位红细胞输注的469例患者中有112例(24%)、血红蛋白低于9 g/dL时接受1单位红细胞输注的469例患者中有142例(30.3%)在住院期间死亡(RR 0.79,95%CI 0.64,0.97,P = 0.03)。结果表明,与宽松输血策略相比,限制性输血策略可降低住院死亡率。在病情稳定的危重症成年患者中采用低于7 g/dL的限制性输血阈值是安全的。
在本研究中,我们发现与宽松策略相比,限制性红细胞输血策略可能降低贫血危重症成年患者的住院死亡率。