Transfusion thresholds and other strategies for guiding allogeneic red blood cell transfusion

Discipline of Clinical Pharmacology, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, Level 5, Clinical Sciences Building, Newcastle Mater Hospital, Edith Street, Waratah, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, 2298.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 6.03). 10/2010; 10(10):CD002042. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002042.pub2
Source: PubMed


Many people are given a transfusion of blood from an unrelated donor as part of their medical treatment. There are, however, risks involved. In particular, infections (including HIV and certain types of hepatitis) may be passed on to the person receiving the blood. This risk is small in high income countries but much larger in poor countries which lack good facilities to test the blood for infections. Because of the risks, doctors try to avoid giving blood unless it is really necessary. One approach is to give the transfusion only if the amount of haemoglobin in the patient's blood has dropped below a certain 'threshold' level. The authors looked for controlled studies evaluating the effectiveness of this approach. They found 17, with a total of 3746 patients. The authors say that more research is needed and that, until more is known, patients who have a serious heart problem should not be treated in this way. The authors conclude that, for most patients, blood transfusion is probably not essential until haemoglobin levels drop below 7.0 grammes per decilitre.

Download full-text


Available from: David Henry, Dec 14, 2013
  • Source
    • "The goal of the study is to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the experimental arm compared with the control arm in terms of complication. Based on the hypothesis of 93 % of hospitalizations without severe complication [2] and a non-inferiority margin of 10 % in the single-unit group, a total of 230 subjects (115 per group) should be randomized to provide a study power of 90 % with an alpha risk of 5 %. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion is required in hematology patients treated with chemotherapy for acute leukemia, autologous (auto) or allogeneic (allo) hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). In certain situations like septic shock, hip surgery, coronary disease or gastrointestinal hemorrhage, a restrictive transfusion strategy is associated with a reduction of infection and death. A transfusion strategy using a single PRBC unit has been retrospectively investigated and showed a safe reduction of PRBC consumption and costs. We therefore designed a study to prospectively demonstrate that the transfusion of a single PRBC unit is safe and not inferior to standard care. Methods: The 1versus2 trial is a randomized trial which will determine if a single-unit transfusion policy is not inferior to a double-unit transfusion policy. The primary endpoint is the incidence of severe complication (grade >= 3) defined as stroke, transient ischemic attack, acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, elevated troponin level, intensive care unit transfer, death, new pulmonary infiltrates, and transfusion-related infections during hospital stays. The secondary endpoint is the number of PRBC units transfused per patient per hospital stay. Two hundred and thirty patients will be randomized to receive a single unit or double unit every time the hemoglobin level is less than 8 g/dL. All patients admitted for induction remission chemotherapy, auto-HSCT or allo-HSCT in hematology intensive care units will be eligible for inclusion. Sample size calculation has determined that a patient population of 230 will be required to prove that the 1-unit PRBC strategy is non-inferior to the 2-unit PRBC strategy. Hemoglobin threshold for transfusion is below 8 g/dL. Estimated percentage of complication-free hospital stays is 93 %. In a non-inferiority hypothesis, the number of patients to include is 230 with a power of 90 % and an alpha risk of 5 %.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2015 · Trials
  • Source
    • "In 1999, the Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care (TRICC) trial demonstrated that a restrictive transfusion policy significantly decreased mortality during hospitalization in patients less acutely ill without active coronary ischemia [6]. Since the publication of that trial, Carless et al. confirmed that restricting transfusions does not increase the rates of cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stroke, pneumonia, thromboembolism , and mortality [7]. An additional study by Herbert et al. showed lower rates of worsening organ dysfunction when transfusions were restricted [8]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Blood products are scarce but essential medical resources. Initially transfusions showed increased perioperative complications, prolonged hospitalizations, and higher mortality. Recently developed restrictive transfusion policies have not shown those adverse affects in critically ill patients. Hospitals adopted these policies to guide blood product administration. The objective of this study is to determine compliance with a restrictive transfusion policy in gynecologic oncology patients. A retrospective chart review of gynecologic oncology patients undergoing transfusion with packed red blood cells (pRBCs) from 12/2008-9/2011 was performed. Cancer type and stage, surgical procedure, hemoglobin values, pRBC transfusions, intraoperative blood loss, and postoperative complications were collected. Each transfusion was classified as compliant or noncompliant. 582 patients requiring 2,276 blood transfusions were identified. The mean age was 55.9years. Ovarian and endometrial cancers were the most common malignancies. Gynecologic oncologists were 81.1% compliant with the restrictive transfusion policy; 59.0% of transfusions were secondary to exceptions. Noncompliant transfusions were commonly given on the day of surgery when intraoperative blood loss was<1500cc and for asymptomatic anemia. Only 64.7% of the transfusions were ordered in single unit increments. There was no significant difference in postoperative infections, thrombotic events, and mortality between compliant and noncompliant transfusions. The majority of gynecologic oncology patients receive transfusions compliant with the restrictive transfusion policy. Morbidity and mortality are not increased with a restrictive transfusion policy. Efforts to improve compliance should focus on limiting transfusions when the hemoglobin is≥7g/dL and transfusing in single pRBCs unit increments.
    Full-text · Article · Oct 2013 · Gynecologic Oncology
  • Source
    • "If normovolemia cannot be maintained, the patient is critically ill or the patient has other co-morbidities (e.g. cardiovascular and chronic pulmonary disease, receiving chemotherapy etc.) a blood transfusion has to be considered earlier and despite higher hemoglobin levels [5-7]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To analyze the characteristics of patients who needed a blood transfusion due to epistaxis-caused anemia and to define potential risk factors. Retrospective cohort study. A total cohort of 591 epistaxis patients, prospectively included between March 2007 and April 2008 at the ENT department of the University Hospital of Zurich, was evaluated concerning the need for blood transfusions. The clinical charts and medical histories of these patients were evaluated. Common parameters that increase the risk for severe anemia due to epistaxis. Twenty-two patients required blood transfusions due to their medical condition. 22.7% suffered from traumatic nosebleeds. Another 27.3% had a known medical condition with an increased bleeding tendency. These proportions were significantly higher than in the group of patients without need of blood transfusion. The odds ratio for receiving a blood transfusion was 14.0 in patients with hematologic disorders, 4.3 in traumatic epistaxis and 7.7 in posterior bleeders. The transfusion-dependent epistaxis patients suffered significantly more often from severe posterior nosebleeds with the need for a surgical therapeutic approach. Patients with severe nosebleeds either from the posterior part of the nose or with known hematologic disorders or traumatic epistaxis should be closely monitored by blood parameter analyses to evaluate the indication for hemotransfusion. The acronym THREAT (Trauma, Hematologic disorder, and REAr origin of bleeding → Transfusion) helps to remember and identify the factors associated with an increased risk of receiving blood transfusion.
    Full-text · Article · Jan 2013 · Journal of otolaryngology - head & neck surgery = Le Journal d'oto-rhino-laryngologie et de chirurgie cervico-faciale
Show more