Risks of restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD): a meta-analysis.

AIM: To evaluate the risks of restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies (haemoglobin 7-8 g dL-1 ) in patients with and without known cardiovascular disease (CVD). BACKGROUND: Recent guidelines recommend restrictive strategies for CVD patients hospitalised for non-CVD indications, patients without known CVD and patients hospitalised for CVD corrective procedures. METHODS/MATERIALS: Database searches were conducted through December 2017 for randomised clinical trials that enrolled patients with and without known CVD, hospitalised either for CVD-corrective procedures or non-cardiac indications, comparing effects of liberal with restrictive strategies on major adverse coronary events (MACE) and death. RESULTS: In CVD patients not undergoing cardiac interventions, a liberal strategy decreased (P = 0·01) the relative risk (95% CI) (RR) of MACE [0·50 (0·29-0·86)] (I2  = 0%). Among patients without known CVD, the incidence of MACE was lower (1·7 vs 3·9%), and the effect of a liberal strategy on MACE [0·79, (0·39-1·58)] was smaller and non-significant but not different from CVD patients (P = 0·30). Combining all CVD and non-CVD patients, a liberal strategy decreased MACE [0·59, (0·39-0·91); P = 0·02]. Conversely, among studies reporting mortality, a liberal strategy decreased mortality in CVD patients (11·7% vs·13·3%) but increased mortality (19·2% vs 18·0%) in patients without known CVD [interaction P = 0·05; ratio of RR 0·73, (0·53-1·00)]. A liberal strategy also did not benefit patients undergoing cardiac surgery; data were insufficient for percutaneous cardiac procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalised for non-cardiac indications, liberal transfusion strategies are associated with a decreased risk of MACE in both those with and without known CVD. However, this only provides a survival benefit to CVD patients not admitted for CVD-corrective procedures.

Conflictos de interés en la nueva definición de consenso para la sepsis y shock séptico (sepsis-3) / Conflicts of interest in the new consensus based definition of sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3)

No disponible

Transfusion of recently donated (fresh) red blood cells (RBCs) does not improve survival in comparison with current practice, while safety of the oldest stored units is yet to be established: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Preclinical studies generated the hypothesis that older stored red blood cells (RBCs) can increase transfusion risks. To examine the most updated and complete clinical evidence and compare results between two trial designs, we assessed both observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the effect of RBC storage age on mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five databases were searched through December 2014 for studies comparing mortality using transfused RBCs having longer and shorter storage times. RESULTS: Analysis of six RCTs found no significant differences in survival comparing current practice (average storage age of 2 to 3 weeks) to transfusion of 1- to 10-day-old RBCs (OR 0·91, 95% CI 0·77-1·07). RBC storage age was lower in RCTs vs. observational studies (P = 0·01). The 31 observational studies found an increased risk of death (OR 1·13, 95% CI 1·03-1·24) (P = 0·01) with increasing age of RBCs, a different mortality effect than RCTs (P = 0·02). CONCLUSION: RCTs established that transfusion of 1- to 10-day-old stored RBCs is not superior to current practice. The apparent discrepancy in mortality between analyses of RCTs and observational studies may in part relate to differences in hypotheses tested and ages of stored RBCs studied. Further trials investigating 1- to 10-day-old stored RBC benefits would seem of lower priority than studies to determine whether 4- to 6-week stored units have safety and efficacy equivalent to the 2- to 3-week-old stored RBCs commonly transfused today.