Comparison of liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategies after hip surgery in patients with coronary artery disease: a post hoc analysis of the FOCUS trial.

BACKGROUND

There are no clear recommendations for optimal transfusion thresholds for patients with coronary artery disease who undergo noncardiac surgery. By comparing restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies for coronary artery disease combined with hip surgery, this study hopes to provide recommendations for transfusion strategies in this special population.

METHODS

A total of 805 patients from the FOCUS trial (Transfusion Trigger Trial for Functional Outcomes in Cardiovascular Patients Undergoing Surgical Hip Fracture Repair) with coronary artery disease combined with hip surgery were divided into two groups based on transfusion thresholds: restricted transfusion (a hemoglobin level of 8 g/deciliter) and liberal transfusion (a hemoglobin threshold of 10 g/deciliter). The primary outcome of this study was a composite endpoint including in-hospital death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, and acute heart failure. The secondary endpoints included other in-hospital adverse events and 30- and 60-day follow-up events. Analyses were performed by intention to treat.

RESULTS

Except for the proportion of congestive heart failure patients, the baseline levels of the two groups were comparable. The median number of transfusion units in the liberal transfusion group was 2 units, and the median transfusion volume in the restricted transfusion group was 0 units. The primary outcome was not significantly different between the two groups (9.2% vs. 9.4%, p = 0.91). The incidence of in-hospital myocardial infarction events was lower in the liberal transfusion group than in the restricted transfusion group (3.2% vs. 6.2%) (OR = 0.51, P = 0.048). The remaining in-hospital endpoint events, except for myocardial infarction, were not significantly different between the two groups. The 30-day and 60-day endpoints of death and inability to walk independently were not significantly different between the two groups, with ORs (95% CI) of 1.00 (0.75-1.31) and 1.06 (0.80-1.41), respectively. We also found no interaction between transfusion strategies and factors such as age, sex, or multiple underlying comorbidities at the 60-day follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in the in-hospital, 30-day or 60-day outcome endpoints between the two groups. However, this study demonstrated that a liberal transfusion strategy tends to reduce the incidence of in-hospital myocardial infarction events in patients with coronary artery disease combined with hip surgery compared to a restrictive transfusion strategy. More high-quality studies should be designed to investigate the optimal transfusion threshold in patients with coronary artery disease treated without cardiac surgery.