The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Effect of packed red blood cell transfusion on the prognosis of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective analysis of eICU-CRD v2.0 multicenter critically ill patients database
Abstract
Background: The effects of packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion on the prognosis of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), particularly on the 30-day mortality rate, are unclear. This study aimed to determine the prognostic influence of PRBC transfusion in patients with UGIB with different hemoglobin (Hb) levels. Methods: The subjects in this study were selected from the Philips Electronic ICU Collaborative Research Database Version 2.0 multicenter critically ill patient database from January 2014 to December 2015. A total of 4689 patients were included in this study. The Hb levels were divided into 3 groups: Hb <6 g/dL (Group 1), 6 g/dL ≤ Hb < 8 g/dL (Group 2), and Hb ≥8 g/dL (Group 3). Based on the administration of PRBC transfusion, each group was subdivided into PRBC and non-PRBC groups. Results: A total of 4689 patients were enrolled in the study, including 825, 2195, and 1669 patients in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Furthermore, the PRBC and non-PRBC groups consisted of 1847 and 2842 patients, respectively. There was no significant difference in the 30-day mortality rate between Group 1 and Group 2 or between the PRBC and non-PRBC subgroups. In Group 3, the 30-day mortality rate of patients who received transfusion was higher than that of patients who did not (13.29% vs 9.14%, P = 0.029). For the PRBC group, the difference in 30-day mortality rate was not statistically significant among the 3 groups, whereas for the non-PRBC group, the 30-day mortality rate in Group 3 was the lowest, and there was a significant difference among the 3 groups (P = 0.003). There was no significant difference in the subgroup analysis of bleeding at different sites and etiologies. Conclusion: Packed red blood cell transfusion does not improve prognosis or reduce mortality in patients with UGIB but may increase mortality in patients with Hb levels greater than 8 g/dL.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- 2012, Trends for incidence of hospitalization and death due to GI complications in the United States from 2001 to 2009, Am J Gastroenterol, 107, 1190, 10.1038/ajg.2012.168 · DOI
- 2013, Improving quality of care in peptic ulcer bleeding: nationwide cohort study of 13,498 consecutive patients in the Danish Clinical Register of Emergency Surgery, Am J Gastroenterol, 108, 1449, 10.1038/ajg.2013.162 · DOI
- 2019, Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute non-variceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding (2018, Hangzhou), Zhonghua Nei Ke Za Zhi, 58, 173
- 2019, Management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding: guideline recommendations from the International Consensus Group, Ann Intern Med, 171, 805, 10.7326/M19-1795 · DOI · Paper page
- 2015, Restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (TRIGGER): a pragmatic, open-label, cluster randomised feasibility trial, Lancet, 386, 137, 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61999-1 · DOI
- 2013, Transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding, N Engl J Med, 368, 11, 10.1056/NEJMoa1211801 · DOI
- 2017, Restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion for gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2, 354, 10.1016/S2468-1253(17)30054-7 · DOI
- 2021, Restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a randomized controlled trial, Saudi J Gastroenterol, 27, 13, 10.4103/sjg.SJG_152_20 · DOI
- 2016, Transfusion thresholds and other strategies for guiding allogeneic red blood cell transfusion, Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 10, CD002042
- 2016, Effect of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies on outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease in a non-cardiac surgery setting: systematic review and meta-analysis, BMJ, 352, i1351
- 2017, Outcomes of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies in older adults from nine randomised controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Lancet Haematol, 4, e465, 10.1016/S2352-3026(17)30141-2 · DOI
- 2019, Prevention of transfusion-transmitted infections, Blood, 133, 1854, 10.1182/blood-2018-11-833996 · DOI · Paper page
- 2020, Blood transfusion in sub-Saharan Africa: walking a tightrope, Lancet Haematol, 7, e774, 10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30329-X · DOI
- 2019, Blood transfusion safety in sub-Saharan Africa: a literature review of changes and challenges in the 21st century, Transfusion, 59, 412, 10.1111/trf.14949 · DOI
- 2018, Blood transfusion in sub-Saharan Africa: understanding the missing gap and responding to present and future challenges, Vox Sang, 113, 726, 10.1111/vox.12705 · DOI · Paper page
- 1999, A multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of transfusion requirements in critical care. Transfusion requirements in critical care investigators, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group, N Engl J Med, 340, 409, 10.1056/NEJM199902113400601 · DOI · Paper page
Metadata
- Authors
- Lv, Z., & Zhang, Y.
- Venue
- Emergency and Critical Care Medicine
- Published
- 2023-04-03
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 156-162
- ISSN
- 2097-0617
- Cited by
- 0
- Language
- en
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of packed red blood cell transfusion on the prognosis of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective analysis of eICU-CRD v2.0 multicenter critically ill patients database. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/ec9.0000000000000080
- The paper
- Lv, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Effect of packed red blood cell transfusion on the prognosis of patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a retrospective analysis of eICU-CRD v2.0 multicenter critically ill patients database. Emergency and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/ec9.0000000000000080
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
