Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objective To compare the benefit and harm of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies to guide red blood cell transfusions.Design Systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.Data sources 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and authors and experts in transfusion were contacted to identify additional trials.Trial selection Published and unpublished randomised clinical trials that evaluated a restrictive compared with a liberal transfusion strategy in adults or children, irrespective of language, blinding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.Data extraction 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.Results 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.Conclusions 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.Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42013004272.

In this study, patients with severe sepsis were assigned to fluid resuscitation with starch (HES 130/0.4) or Ringer's acetate. The starch group had an increased risk of death at day 90 and increased use of renal-replacement therapy, as compared with the Ringer's acetate group. Intravenous fluids are the mainstay of treatment for patients with hypovolemia due to severe sepsis. Colloid solutions are used to obtain rapid and lasting circulatory stabilization, but there are limited data to support this practice. 1 The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines recommend the use of either colloids or crystalloids, 2 but high-molecular-weight hydroxyethyl starch (HES) may cause acute kidney failure in patients with severe sepsis, as observed in two randomized trials. 3 , 4 Those trials had substantial limitations, and participants received HES solutions with a molecular weight of 200 kD and a substitution ratio (the number of hydroxyethyl groups per glucose molecule) of . . .

Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) [corrected] is widely used for fluid resuscitation in intensive care units (ICUs), but its safety and efficacy have not been established in patients with severe sepsis. In this multicenter, parallel-group, blinded trial, we randomly assigned patients with severe sepsis to fluid resuscitation in the ICU with either 6% HES 130/0.42 (Tetraspan) or Ringer's acetate at a dose of up to 33 ml per kilogram of ideal body weight per day. The primary outcome measure was either death or end-stage kidney failure (dependence on dialysis) at 90 days after randomization. Of the 804 patients who underwent randomization, 798 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. The two intervention groups had similar baseline characteristics. At 90 days after randomization, 201 of 398 patients (51%) assigned to HES 130/0.42 had died, as compared with 172 of 400 patients (43%) assigned to Ringer's acetate (relative risk, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.36; P=0.03); 1 patient in each group had end-stage kidney failure. In the 90-day period, 87 patients (22%) assigned to HES 130/0.42 were treated with renal-replacement therapy versus 65 patients (16%) assigned to Ringer's acetate (relative risk, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.80; P=0.04), and 38 patients (10%) and 25 patients (6%), respectively, had severe bleeding (relative risk, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.94 to 2.48; P=0.09). The results were supported by multivariate analyses, with adjustment for known risk factors for death or acute kidney injury at baseline. Patients with severe sepsis assigned to fluid resuscitation with HES 130/0.42 had an increased risk of death at day 90 and were more likely to require renal-replacement therapy, as compared with those receiving Ringer's acetate. (Funded by the Danish Research Council and others; 6S ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00962156.).

Purpose We assessed the predefined long-term outcomes in patients randomised in the Transfusion Requirements in Septic Shock (TRISS) trial. Methods In 32 Scandinavian ICUs, we randomised 1005 patients with septic shock and haemoglobin of 9 g/dl or less to receive single units of leuko-reduced red cells when haemoglobin level was 7 g/dl or less (lower threshold) or 9 g/dl or less (higher threshold) during ICU stay. We assessed mortality rates 1 year after randomisation and again in all patients at time of longest follow-up in the intention-to-treat population ( n  = 998) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) 1 year after randomisation in the Danish patients only ( n  = 777). Results Mortality rates in the lower- versus higher-threshold group at 1 year were 53.5 % (268/501 patients) versus 54.6 % (271/496) [relative risk 0.97; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.85–1.09; P  = 0.62]; at longest follow-up (median 21 months), they were 56.7 % (284/501) versus 61.0 % (302/495) (hazard ratio 0.88; 95 % CI 0.75–1.03; P  = 0.12). We obtained HRQoL data at 1 year in 629 of the 777 (81 %) Danish patients, and mean differences between the lower- and higher-threshold group in scores of physical HRQoL were 0.4 (95 % CI −2.4 to 3.1; P  = 0.79) and in mental HRQoL 0.5 (95 % CI −3.1 to 4.0; P  = 0.79). Conclusions Long-term mortality rates and HRQoL did not differ in patients with septic shock and anaemia who were transfused at a haemoglobin threshold of 7 g/dl versus a threshold of 9 g/dl. We may reject a more than 3 % increased hazard of death in the lower- versus higher-threshold group at the time of longest follow-up.

PurposePatients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are often transfused with red blood cells (RBC). During storage, the RBCs and storage medium undergo changes, which may have clinical consequences. Several trials now have assessed these consequences, and we reviewed the present evidence on the effects of shorter versus longer storage time of transfused RBCs on outcomes in ICU patients.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) of randomised clinical trials including adult ICU patients transfused with fresher versus older or standard issue blood.ResultsWe included seven trials with a total of 18,283 randomised ICU patients; two trials of 7504 patients were judged to have low risk of bias. We observed no effects of fresher versus older blood on death (relative risk 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97–1.11; 7349 patients; TSA-adjusted CI 0.93–1.15), adverse events (1.26, 0.76–2.09; 7332 patients; TSA-adjusted CI 0.16–9.87) or post-transfusion infections (1.07, 0.96–1.20; 7332 patients; TSA-adjusted CI 0.90–1.27). The results were unchanged by including trials with high risk of bias. TSA confirmed the results and the required information size was reached for mortality for a relative risk change of 20%.ConclusionsWe may be able to reject a clinically meaningful effect of RBC storage time on mortality in transfused adult ICU patients as our trial sequential analyses reject a 10% relative risk change in death when comparing fresher versus older blood for transfusion.

Background Treating anaemia with red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is frequent, but controversial, in patients with septic shock. Therefore we assessed characteristics and outcome associated with RBC transfusion in this group of high risk patients. Methods We did a prospective cohort study at 7 general intensive care units (ICUs) including all adult patients with septic shock in a 5-month period. Results Ninety-five of the 213 included patients (45%) received median 3 (interquartile range 2–5) RBC units during shock. The median pre-transfusion haemoglobin level was 8.1 (7.4–8.9) g/dl and independent of shock day and bleeding. Patients with cardiovascular disease were transfused at higher haemoglobin levels. Transfused patients had higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II (56 (45-69) vs. 48 (37-61), p = 0.0005), more bleeding episodes, lower haemoglobin levels days 1 to 5, higher Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (days 1 and 5), more days in shock (5 (3-10) vs. 2 (2-4), p = 0.0001), more days in ICU (10 (4-19) vs. 4 (2-8), p = 0.0001) and higher 90-day mortality (66 vs. 43%, p = 0.001). The latter association was lost after adjustment for admission category and SAPS II and SOFA-score on day 1. Conclusions The decision to transfuse patients with septic shock was likely affected by disease severity and bleeding, but haemoglobin level was the only measure that consistently differed between transfused and non-transfused patients.

Objective To compare patient outcomes of restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion strategies in patients with cardiovascular disease not undergoing cardiac surgery. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Randomised controlled trials involving a threshold for red blood cell transfusion in hospital. We searched (to 2 November 2015) CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PubMed, LILACS, NHSBT Transfusion Evidence Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ISRCTN Register, and EU Clinical Trials Register. Authors were contacted for data whenever possible. Trial selection Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials comparing a restrictive with liberal transfusion threshold and that included patients with cardiovascular disease. Data extraction and synthesis Data extraction was completed in duplicate. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane methods. Relative risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were presented in all meta-analyses. Mantel-Haenszel random effects models were used to pool risk ratios. Main outcome measures 30 day mortality, and cardiovascular events. Results 41 trials were identified; of these, seven included data on patients with cardiovascular disease. Data from a further four trials enrolling patients with cardiovascular disease were obtained from the authors. In total, 11 trials enrolling patients with cardiovascular disease (n=3033) were included for meta-analysis (restrictive transfusion, n=1514 patients; liberal transfusion, n=1519). The pooled risk ratio for the association between transfusion thresholds and 30 day mortality was 1.15 (95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.50, P=0.50), with little heterogeneity (I2=14%). The risk of acute coronary syndrome in patients managed with restrictive compared with liberal transfusion was increased (nine trials; risk ratio 1.78, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 2.70, P=0.01, I2=0%). Conclusions The results show that it may not be safe to use a restrictive transfusion threshold of less than 80 g/L in patients with ongoing acute coronary syndrome or chronic cardiovascular disease. Effects on mortality and other outcomes are uncertain. These data support the use of a more liberal transfusion threshold (>80 g/L) for patients with both acute and chronic cardiovascular disease until adequately powered high quality randomised trials have been undertaken in patients with cardiovascular disease. Registration PROSPERO CRD42014014251.

A large Scandinavian randomized trial showed no important outcome differences between hemoglobin levels of 7 g per deciliter and 9 g per deciliter as transfusion thresholds in patients with septic shock. Blood transfusions are frequently given to patients with septic shock. 1 – 4 Some of these transfusions are given to patients who are bleeding, but many nonbleeding patients also undergo transfusion. 5 The recommendations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign regarding blood transfusion in patients with septic shock are complex and include a recommendation for transfusion to maintain a hematocrit of more than 30% in the presence of hypoperfusion in the first 6 hours. 6 After that, the transfusion threshold should be a hemoglobin level of less than 7 g per deciliter, aiming at levels between 7 g and 9 g per deciliter in patients . . .