Article

Association of Blood Transfusion With Increased Mortality in Myocardial Infarction A Meta-analysis and Diversity-Adjusted Study Sequential Analysis

Archives of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 13.25). 12/2012; 173(2):1-8. DOI: 10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.1001
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND The benefit of blood transfusion in patients with myocardial infarction is controversial, and a possibility of harm exists. METHODS A systematic search of studies published between January 1, 1966, and March 31, 2012, was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. English-language studies comparing blood transfusion with no blood transfusion or a liberal vs restricted blood transfusion strategy were identified. Two study authors independently reviewed 729 originally identified titles and abstracts and selected 10 for analysis. Study title, follow-up period, blood transfusion strategy, and mortality outcomes were extracted manually from all selected studies, and the quality of each study was assessed using the strengthening Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist. RESULTS Studies of blood transfusion strategy in anemia associated with myocardial infarction were abstracted, as well as all-cause mortality rates at the longest available follow-up periods for the individual studies. Pooled effect estimates were calculated with random-effects models. Analyses of blood transfusion in myocardial infarction revealed increased all-cause mortality associated with a strategy of blood transfusion vs no blood transfusion during myocardial infarction (18.2% vs 10.2%) (risk ratio, 2.91; 95% CI, 2.46-3.44; P < .001), with a weighted absolute risk increase of 12% and a number needed to harm of 8 (95% CI, 6-17). Multivariate meta-regression revealed that blood transfusion was associated with a higher risk for mortality independent of baseline hemoglobin level, nadir hemoglobin level, and change in hemoglobin level during the hospital stay. Blood transfusion was also significantly associated with a higher risk for subsequent myocardial infarction (risk ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.06-3.93; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS Blood transfusion or a liberal blood transfusion strategy compared with no blood transfusion or a restricted blood transfusion strategy is associated with higher all-cause mortality rates. A practice of routine or liberal blood transfusion in myocardial infarction should not be encouraged but requires investigation in a large trial with low risk for bias.

Full-text

Available from: Jørn Wetterslev, May 29, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
143 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the benefit and harm of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies to guide red blood cell transfusions. Systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials. Cochrane central register of controlled trials, SilverPlatter Medline (1950 to date), SilverPlatter Embase (1980 to date), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to present). Reference lists of identified trials and other systematic reviews were assessed, and authors and experts in transfusion were contacted to identify additional trials. Published and unpublished randomised clinical trials that evaluated a restrictive compared with a liberal transfusion strategy in adults or children, irrespective of language, blinding procedure, publication status, or sample size. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts of trials identified, and relevant trials were evaluated in full text for eligibility. Two reviewers then independently extracted data on methods, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias from included trials. random effects models were used to estimate risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. 31 trials totalling 9813 randomised patients were included. The proportion of patients receiving red blood cells (relative risk 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.63, 8923 patients, 24 trials) and the number of red blood cell units transfused (mean difference -1.43, 95% confidence interval -2.01 to -0.86) were lower with the restrictive compared with liberal transfusion strategies. Restrictive compared with liberal transfusion strategies were not associated with risk of death (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01, 5707 patients, nine lower risk of bias trials), overall morbidity (0.98, 0.85 to 1.12, 4517 patients, six lower risk of bias trials), or fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction (1.28, 0.66 to 2.49, 4730 patients, seven lower risk of bias trials). Results were not affected by the inclusion of trials with unclear or high risk of bias. Using trial sequential analyses on mortality and myocardial infarction, the required information size was not reached, but a 15% relative risk reduction or increase in overall morbidity with restrictive transfusion strategies could be excluded. Compared with liberal strategies, restrictive transfusion strategies were associated with a reduction in the number of red blood cell units transfused and number of patients being transfused, but mortality, overall morbidity, and myocardial infarction seemed to be unaltered. Restrictive transfusion strategies are safe in most clinical settings. Liberal transfusion strategies have not been shown to convey any benefit to patients. PROSPERO CRD42013004272. © Holst et al 2015.
    BMJ (online) 01/2015; 350:h1354. · 16.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study sought to define the prevalence and prognostic impact of blood transfusions in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice. Although the presence of anemia is associated with adverse outcomes in patients undergoing PCI, the optimal use of blood products in patients undergoing PCI remains controversial. A search of EMBASE and MEDLINE was conducted to identify PCI studies that evaluated blood transfusions and their association with major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and mortality. Two independent reviewers screened the studies for inclusion, and data were extracted from relevant studies. Random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the risk of adverse outcomes with blood transfusions. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by considering the I(2) statistic. Nineteen studies that included 2,258,711 patients with more than 54,000 transfusion events were identified (prevalence of blood transfusion 2.3%). Crude mortality rate was 6,435 of 50,979 (12.6%, 8 studies) in patients who received a blood transfusion and 27,061 of 2,266,111 (1.2%, 8 studies) in the remaining patients. Crude MACE rates were 17.4% (8,439 of 48,518) in patients who had a blood transfusion and 3.1% (68,062 of 2,212,730) in the remaining cohort. Meta-analysis demonstrated that blood transfusion was independently associated with an increase in mortality (odds ratio: 3.02, 95% confidence interval: 2.16 to 4.21, I(2) = 91%) and MACE (odds ratio: 3.15, 95% confidence interval: 2.59 to 3.82, I(2) = 81%). Similar observations were recorded in studies that adjusted for baseline hematocrit, anemia, and bleeding. Blood transfusion is independently associated with increased risk of mortality and MACE events. Clinicians should minimize the risk for periprocedural transfusion by using available bleeding-avoidance strategies and avoiding liberal transfusion practices. Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    JACC Cardiovascular Interventions 02/2015; 8(3). DOI:10.1016/j.jcin.2014.09.026 · 7.44 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AbstrActObjeCtiveTo compare the benefit and harm of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies to guide red blood cell transfusions.DesignSystematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.Data sOurCesCochrane central register of controlled trials, SilverPlatter Medline (1950 to date), SilverPlatter Embase (1980 to date), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to present). Reference lists of identified trials and other systematic reviews were assessed, and authors and experts in transfusion were contacted to identify additional trials.trial seleCtiOnPublished and unpublished randomised clinical trials that evaluated a restrictive compared with a liberal transfusion strategy in adults or children, irrespective of language, blinding procedure, publication status, or sample size.Data extraCtiOnTwo authors independently screened titles and abstracts of trials identified, and relevant trials were evaluated in full text for eligibility. Two reviewers then independently extracted data on methods, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias from included trials. random effects models were used to estimate risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.results31 trials totalling 9813 randomised patients were included. The proportion of patients receiving red blood cells (relative risk 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.63, 8923 patients, 24 trials) and the number of red blood cell units transfused (mean difference −1.43, 95% confidence interval −2.01 to −0.86) were lower with the restrictive compared with liberal transfusion strategies. Restrictive compared with liberal transfusion strategies were not associated with risk of death (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01, 5707 patients, nine lower risk of bias trials), overall morbidity (0.98, 0.85 to 1.12, 4517 patients, six lower risk of bias trials), or fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction (1.28, 0.66 to 2.49, 4730 patients, seven lower risk of bias trials). Results were not affected by the inclusion of trials with unclear or high risk of bias. Using trial sequential analyses on mortality and myocardial infarction, the required information size was not reached, but a 15% relative risk reduction or increase in overall morbidity with restrictive transfusion strategies could be excluded.COnClusiOnsCompared with liberal strategies, restrictive transfusion strategies were associated with a reduction in the number of red blood cell units transfused and number of patients being transfused, but mortality, overall morbidity, and myocardial infarction seemed to be unaltered. Restrictive transfusion strategies are safe in most clinical settings. Liberal transfusion strategies have not been shown to convey any benefit to patients.trial registratiOnPROSPERO CRD42013004272
    BMJ: British medical journal 03/2015; 350. DOI:10.1136/bmj.h1354 · 16.30 Impact Factor