Critical Care Medicine Department, Clinical Center, and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.
Division of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Blood. 2024 Nov 14;144(20):2075-2082. doi: 10.1182/blood.2024025927.
A "restrictive" red blood cell transfusion threshold, a hemoglobin concentration <7 to 8 g/dL, has long been recommended for most hospitalized patients including anemic patients with stable cardiovascular disease (CVD). Although no threshold recommendation is given for acute coronary syndromes (ACSs), recent evidence suggests that "liberal" rather than "restrictive" transfusion strategies are associated with significantly improved safety for hospitalized patients with stable CVD and/or ACS. This finding suggests that previously available data were misinterpreted. Conclusions drawn from earlier transfusion trigger trials have been confounded by unintentional trial design and analysis flaws that have contributed to erroneous recommendations regarding the safety of a restrictive threshold. Subsequently, these conclusions have been incorporated into widely accepted guidelines and clinical practice. Management with a restrictive vs liberal transfusion strategy (<10 g/dL) increases the risk of new-onset ACS in patients with CVD by ∼2%. We estimate that since 2019, using hospital databases and a recent meta-analysis, this practice may have resulted in ∼700 excess ACS events per year in orthopedic surgical patients. Given these findings, transfusion practices in other clinical conditions, particularly those derived from similar transfusion trigger trials, should be questioned. Restrictive and liberal transfusion policies merit a general reconsideration. Rather than a single numerical transfusion trigger, transfusion therapy should be personalized. Consideration of an individual patient's age, clinical status, and comorbidities is integral to transfusing. To avoid making similar errors, future trials of transfusion therapy should determine common practices before study inception and incorporate them as a usual-care "control" comparator arm into the trial design. Such studies should more reliably improve current transfusion practice.
长期以来,大多数住院患者(包括患有稳定心血管疾病的贫血患者)都建议采用“限制”性的红细胞输血阈值,即血红蛋白浓度<7 至 8 g/dL。尽管没有为急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)推荐阈值,但最近的证据表明,与“限制”输血策略相比,“宽松”输血策略与稳定 CVD 和/或 ACS 住院患者的安全性显著提高相关。这一发现表明,以前的数据被误解了。从早期输血触发试验中得出的结论受到了试验设计和分析缺陷的影响,这些缺陷导致了关于限制阈值安全性的错误建议。随后,这些结论被纳入了广泛接受的指南和临床实践中。与限制性(<10 g/dL)与宽松输血策略相比,增加了 CVD 患者新发 ACS 的风险约 2%。我们估计,自 2019 年以来,使用医院数据库和最近的荟萃分析,这种做法可能导致每年骨科手术患者中出现约 700 例额外的 ACS 事件。鉴于这些发现,应质疑其他临床情况下的输血实践,特别是那些源自类似输血触发试验的实践。限制和宽松的输血政策值得重新全面考虑。输血疗法不应采用单一的数值输血触发,而应个体化。考虑患者的年龄、临床状况和合并症是输血的重要组成部分。为了避免犯类似的错误,未来的输血治疗试验应在研究开始前确定常见做法,并将其作为常规护理“对照”比较组纳入试验设计。此类研究应更可靠地改善当前的输血实践。