Cited by 1,250Blood transfusion and managementTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, ResuscitationErythropoietin and Anemia Treatment

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

Open access
Carson, Jeffrey L, Stanworth, Simon J, Roubinian, Nareg, Fergusson, Dean A, Triulzi, Darrell, Doree, Carolyn, Hebert, Paul C·2016·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is considerable uncertainty regarding the optimal haemoglobin threshold for the use of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in anaemic patients. Blood is a scarce resource, and in some countries, transfusions are less safe than others because of a lack of testing for viral pathogens. Therefore, reducing the number and volume of transfusions would benefit patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to compare 30-day mortality and other clinical outcomes in participants randomized to restrictive versus liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion thresholds (triggers) for all conditions. The restrictive transfusion threshold uses a lower haemoglobin level to trigger transfusion (most commonly 7 g/dL or 8 g/dL), and the liberal transfusion threshold uses a higher haemoglobin level to trigger transfusion (most commonly 9 g/dL to 10 g/dL). SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials by searching CENTRAL (2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1946 to May 2016), Embase (1974 to May 2016), the Transfusion Evidence Library (1950 to May 2016), the Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index (1990 to May 2016), and ongoing trial registries (27 May 2016). We also checked reference lists of other published reviews and relevant papers to identify any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized trials where intervention groups were assigned on the basis of a clear transfusion 'trigger', described as a haemoglobin (Hb) or haematocrit (Hct) level below which a red blood cell (RBC) transfusion was to be administered. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We pooled risk ratios of clinical outcomes across trials using a random-effects model. Two people extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. We conducted predefined analyses by clinical subgroups. We defined participants randomly allocated to the lower transfusion threshold as 'restrictive transfusion' and to the higher transfusion threshold as 'liberal transfusion'. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 31 trials, involving 12,587 participants, across a range of clinical specialities (e.g. surgery, critical care) met the eligibility criteria. The trial interventions were split fairly equally with regard to the haemoglobin concentration used to define the restrictive transfusion group. About half of them used a 7 g/dL threshold, and the other half used a restrictive transfusion threshold of 8 g/dL to 9 g/dL. The trials were generally at low risk of bias .Some items of methodological quality were unclear, including definitions and blinding for secondary outcomes.Restrictive transfusion strategies reduced the risk of receiving a RBC transfusion by 43% across a broad range of clinical specialties (risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 0.65; 12,587 participants, 31 trials; high-quality evidence), with a large amount of heterogeneity between trials (I² = 97%). Overall, restrictive transfusion strategies did not increase or decrease the risk of 30-day mortality compared with liberal transfusion strategies (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16, I² = 37%; N = 10,537; 23 trials; moderate-quality evidence) or any of the other outcomes assessed (i.e. cardiac events (low-quality evidence), myocardial infarction, stroke, thromboembolism (high-quality evidence)). Liberal transfusion did not affect the risk of infection (pneumonia, wound, or bacteraemia). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Transfusing at a restrictive haemoglobin concentration of between 7 g/dL to 8 g/dL decreased the proportion of participants exposed to RBC transfusion by 43% across a broad range of clinical specialities. There was no evidence that a restrictive transfusion strategy impacts 30-day mortality or morbidity (i.e. mortality at other points, cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stroke, pneumonia, thromboembolism, infection) compared with a liberal transfusion strategy. There were insufficient data to inform the safety of transfusion policies in certain clinical subgroups, including acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, neurological injury/traumatic brain injury, acute neurological disorders, stroke, thrombocytopenia, cancer, haematological malignancies, and bone marrow failure. The findings provide good evidence that transfusions with allogeneic RBCs can be avoided in most patients with haemoglobin thresholds above 7 g/dL to 8 g/dL.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd002042.pub4

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 144 · Cited by 1,250

Authors
Carson, J. L., Stanworth, S. J., Roubinian, N., Fergusson, D. A., Triulzi, D., Doree, C., & Hebert, P. C.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • NHS Blood and Transplant (GB)
  • University of Montreal Hospital Research Centre; Centre for Research; 900 rue St-Denis, local R04-402 Tour Viger Montreal QC Canada H2X 0A9
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-10-12
Volume
2016
Issue
10
Pages
CD002042-CD002042
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W2163034869
Cited by
1,250
References
144
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 73 · 2020: 87 · 2019: 103 · 2018: 90 · 2017: 129 · 2016: 105 · 2015: 105 · 2014: 93 · 2013: 72 · 2012: 40
FWCI
13.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • NOVA (University of Newcastle Australia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Biochemistry › Blood transfusion and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Trauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Erythropoietin and Anemia Treatment
Keywords
red blood cell transfusion, transfusion thresholds, restrictive transfusion, liberal transfusion, hemoglobin threshold, anemia, 30-day mortality, transfusion safety, transfusion-transmitted infections, intensive care, chronic kidney disease, heart failure, sepsis, risk of bias
MeSH terms
Anemia, Hematocrit, Hemoglobin A, Humans, Reference Values, Transplantation, Autologous, Transplantation, Homologous, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Erythrocyte Transfusion

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review