Transfusion Triggers: A systematic review of the literature

Jeffrey L. Carson, Suzanne Hill, Paul A. Carless, Paul Hébert, David Henry

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

176 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Most clinical practice guidelines recommend restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practices with the goal of minimizing transmission of blood-borne pathogens. The purpose of this review is to compare clinical outcomes in patients randomized to restrictive versus liberal transfusion thresholds (triggers). We conducted a search of OVID Medline, Current Contents, the Cochrane Library, and bibliographies of published studies. Our search strategies used a combination of key-word terms as text and MeSH headings relating to transfusion triggers. We included trials if the comparison groups were assigned on the basis of a clear transfusion trigger or threshold, and the study was randomized with a concurrent control group. Eligibility of studies was assessed by 2 independent raters, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Disagreements not resolved by consensus were referred to a third party for review. Two raters assessed the methodologic quality of the trials modified from the methods of Schultz. The main study outcomes probability of receiving an RBC transfusion, volume of RBCs transfused, hematocrit levels, mortality, and length of hospital stay. Ten trials, which reported outcomes for a total of 1,780 patients, were included. Five studies were in surgical patients, 3 were in the setting of acute blood loss and trauma, and 2 involved intensive care unit patients. Transfusion triggers varied between 7 and 10 g/dL (most often they were 8 or 9 g/dL). Being randomized to a restrictive transfusion trigger group had the following average effects: the probability of receiving an RBC transfusion was reduced by 42% (relative risk, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47, 0.71), the volume of RBCs was reduced by 0.93 units (95% CI 0.36, 1.5 units), and hematocrit values were 5.6 % lower (95% CI 3.5, 7.7%). Mortality, rates of cardiac events, morbidity, and length of hospital stay were unaffected. The limited published evidence supports the use of restrictive transfusion triggers in patients who are free of serious cardiac disease. However, most of the data on clinical outcomes were generated by a single trial. The effects of conservative transfusion triggers on functional status, morbidity, and mortality, particularly in patients with cardiac disease, need to be tested in further large clinical trials. In countries with inadequate screening of donor blood, the data may constitute a stronger basis for avoiding transfusion with allogeneic RBCs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)187-199
Number of pages13
JournalTransfusion Medicine Reviews
Volume16
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Blood
Erythrocyte Transfusion
Length of Stay
Confidence Intervals
Hematocrit
Mortality
Heart Diseases
Blood-Borne Pathogens
Medical Subject Headings
Morbidity
Donor Selection
Intensive care units
Bibliographies
Bibliography
Pathogens
Blood Donors
Cell Size
Practice Guidelines
Libraries
Intensive Care Units

Cite this

Carson, Jeffrey L. ; Hill, Suzanne ; Carless, Paul A. ; Hébert, Paul ; Henry, David. / Transfusion Triggers : A systematic review of the literature. In: Transfusion Medicine Reviews. 2002 ; Vol. 16, No. 3. pp. 187-199.
@article{62ab69baa39145bc8982c60242dcb0ba,
title = "Transfusion Triggers: A systematic review of the literature",
abstract = "Most clinical practice guidelines recommend restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practices with the goal of minimizing transmission of blood-borne pathogens. The purpose of this review is to compare clinical outcomes in patients randomized to restrictive versus liberal transfusion thresholds (triggers). We conducted a search of OVID Medline, Current Contents, the Cochrane Library, and bibliographies of published studies. Our search strategies used a combination of key-word terms as text and MeSH headings relating to transfusion triggers. We included trials if the comparison groups were assigned on the basis of a clear transfusion trigger or threshold, and the study was randomized with a concurrent control group. Eligibility of studies was assessed by 2 independent raters, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Disagreements not resolved by consensus were referred to a third party for review. Two raters assessed the methodologic quality of the trials modified from the methods of Schultz. The main study outcomes probability of receiving an RBC transfusion, volume of RBCs transfused, hematocrit levels, mortality, and length of hospital stay. Ten trials, which reported outcomes for a total of 1,780 patients, were included. Five studies were in surgical patients, 3 were in the setting of acute blood loss and trauma, and 2 involved intensive care unit patients. Transfusion triggers varied between 7 and 10 g/dL (most often they were 8 or 9 g/dL). Being randomized to a restrictive transfusion trigger group had the following average effects: the probability of receiving an RBC transfusion was reduced by 42{\%} (relative risk, 0.58; 95{\%} confidence interval [CI] 0.47, 0.71), the volume of RBCs was reduced by 0.93 units (95{\%} CI 0.36, 1.5 units), and hematocrit values were 5.6 {\%} lower (95{\%} CI 3.5, 7.7{\%}). Mortality, rates of cardiac events, morbidity, and length of hospital stay were unaffected. The limited published evidence supports the use of restrictive transfusion triggers in patients who are free of serious cardiac disease. However, most of the data on clinical outcomes were generated by a single trial. The effects of conservative transfusion triggers on functional status, morbidity, and mortality, particularly in patients with cardiac disease, need to be tested in further large clinical trials. In countries with inadequate screening of donor blood, the data may constitute a stronger basis for avoiding transfusion with allogeneic RBCs.",
author = "Carson, {Jeffrey L.} and Suzanne Hill and Carless, {Paul A.} and Paul H{\'e}bert and David Henry",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.1053/tmrv.2002.33461",
language = "English",
volume = "16",
pages = "187--199",
journal = "Transfusion Medicine Reviews",
issn = "0887-7963",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "3",

}

Transfusion Triggers : A systematic review of the literature. / Carson, Jeffrey L.; Hill, Suzanne; Carless, Paul A.; Hébert, Paul; Henry, David.

In: Transfusion Medicine Reviews, Vol. 16, No. 3, 2002, p. 187-199.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Transfusion Triggers

T2 - A systematic review of the literature

AU - Carson, Jeffrey L.

AU - Hill, Suzanne

AU - Carless, Paul A.

AU - Hébert, Paul

AU - Henry, David

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - Most clinical practice guidelines recommend restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practices with the goal of minimizing transmission of blood-borne pathogens. The purpose of this review is to compare clinical outcomes in patients randomized to restrictive versus liberal transfusion thresholds (triggers). We conducted a search of OVID Medline, Current Contents, the Cochrane Library, and bibliographies of published studies. Our search strategies used a combination of key-word terms as text and MeSH headings relating to transfusion triggers. We included trials if the comparison groups were assigned on the basis of a clear transfusion trigger or threshold, and the study was randomized with a concurrent control group. Eligibility of studies was assessed by 2 independent raters, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Disagreements not resolved by consensus were referred to a third party for review. Two raters assessed the methodologic quality of the trials modified from the methods of Schultz. The main study outcomes probability of receiving an RBC transfusion, volume of RBCs transfused, hematocrit levels, mortality, and length of hospital stay. Ten trials, which reported outcomes for a total of 1,780 patients, were included. Five studies were in surgical patients, 3 were in the setting of acute blood loss and trauma, and 2 involved intensive care unit patients. Transfusion triggers varied between 7 and 10 g/dL (most often they were 8 or 9 g/dL). Being randomized to a restrictive transfusion trigger group had the following average effects: the probability of receiving an RBC transfusion was reduced by 42% (relative risk, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47, 0.71), the volume of RBCs was reduced by 0.93 units (95% CI 0.36, 1.5 units), and hematocrit values were 5.6 % lower (95% CI 3.5, 7.7%). Mortality, rates of cardiac events, morbidity, and length of hospital stay were unaffected. The limited published evidence supports the use of restrictive transfusion triggers in patients who are free of serious cardiac disease. However, most of the data on clinical outcomes were generated by a single trial. The effects of conservative transfusion triggers on functional status, morbidity, and mortality, particularly in patients with cardiac disease, need to be tested in further large clinical trials. In countries with inadequate screening of donor blood, the data may constitute a stronger basis for avoiding transfusion with allogeneic RBCs.

AB - Most clinical practice guidelines recommend restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practices with the goal of minimizing transmission of blood-borne pathogens. The purpose of this review is to compare clinical outcomes in patients randomized to restrictive versus liberal transfusion thresholds (triggers). We conducted a search of OVID Medline, Current Contents, the Cochrane Library, and bibliographies of published studies. Our search strategies used a combination of key-word terms as text and MeSH headings relating to transfusion triggers. We included trials if the comparison groups were assigned on the basis of a clear transfusion trigger or threshold, and the study was randomized with a concurrent control group. Eligibility of studies was assessed by 2 independent raters, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Disagreements not resolved by consensus were referred to a third party for review. Two raters assessed the methodologic quality of the trials modified from the methods of Schultz. The main study outcomes probability of receiving an RBC transfusion, volume of RBCs transfused, hematocrit levels, mortality, and length of hospital stay. Ten trials, which reported outcomes for a total of 1,780 patients, were included. Five studies were in surgical patients, 3 were in the setting of acute blood loss and trauma, and 2 involved intensive care unit patients. Transfusion triggers varied between 7 and 10 g/dL (most often they were 8 or 9 g/dL). Being randomized to a restrictive transfusion trigger group had the following average effects: the probability of receiving an RBC transfusion was reduced by 42% (relative risk, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47, 0.71), the volume of RBCs was reduced by 0.93 units (95% CI 0.36, 1.5 units), and hematocrit values were 5.6 % lower (95% CI 3.5, 7.7%). Mortality, rates of cardiac events, morbidity, and length of hospital stay were unaffected. The limited published evidence supports the use of restrictive transfusion triggers in patients who are free of serious cardiac disease. However, most of the data on clinical outcomes were generated by a single trial. The effects of conservative transfusion triggers on functional status, morbidity, and mortality, particularly in patients with cardiac disease, need to be tested in further large clinical trials. In countries with inadequate screening of donor blood, the data may constitute a stronger basis for avoiding transfusion with allogeneic RBCs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036017880&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1053/tmrv.2002.33461

DO - 10.1053/tmrv.2002.33461

M3 - Review article

VL - 16

SP - 187

EP - 199

JO - Transfusion Medicine Reviews

JF - Transfusion Medicine Reviews

SN - 0887-7963

IS - 3

ER -