Blood Transfusion Strategies in Patients Supported by Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

Y. Kim
{"title":"Blood Transfusion Strategies in Patients Supported by Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation","authors":"Y. Kim","doi":"10.4266/KJCCM.2015.30.3.139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since red blood cell (RBC) transfusion was first performed by English obstetrician James Blundell 200 years ago,[1] it has become one of the most commonly used lifesaving therapies. Historically, RBC transfusion have been viewed as a safe and effective means of treating anemia and improving oxygen delivery to tissues. However, in the early 1980s, transfusion practice began to come under systematic scrutiny.[2,3] The early concern about the safety of blood transfusion revolved around transfusion-related infection. However, the concern about risks of blood transfusion have become diverse and complicated over the last three decades, according to research findings. In the recent literature, blood transfusion has been confirmed as an independent risk factor for mortality, perioperative infection, postinjury multiple organ failure, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and admission to the intensive care unit(ICU).[4-7] Problems about blood transfusion are particularly important in the critically ill patients. Many data suggest that critically ill patients can tolerate hemoglobin levels as low as 7 g/dL and that a “liberal” RBC transfusion strategy may in fact lead to worse clinical outcomes.[8] Actually, RBC transfusion impairs physiologic control of regional vascular tone, induces coagulopathy and negatively impacts immune function and antioxidant system.[9] The 2012 Cochrane analysis reported that restrictive transfusion strategies were more effective than liberal transfusion strategies in reducing hospital mortality significantly among 6,264 patients from 1986 to 2011.[10,11] As such, newer “restrictive” hematocrit threshold for transfusion (e.g., 21%) are now appreciated to be at least noninferior to more “liberal” hematocrit thresholds (e.g., 30%) for broad array of conditions.[9] The efficacy of transfusion in critically ill pediatric patients has been also questioned as is still uncertain for adult critically ill patients. Lacroix et al. suggested, based on their TRIPICU study, that there was no difference in outcomes of stable critically ill children between restrictive (hemoglobin threshold of 7 g/dL) and liberal (hemoglobin threshold of 9.5 g/dL) transfusion strategies.[12] Subgroup analysis of postsurgical and postcardiac surgical patients from the TRIPICU study revealed similar findings. Among pediatric cardiac surgical patients, greater RBC transfusion volumes are associated with prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation, an increase in nosocomial infection rates and duration of hospitalization.[13,14]","PeriodicalId":255255,"journal":{"name":"The Korean Journal of Critical Care Medicine","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Korean Journal of Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4266/KJCCM.2015.30.3.139","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since red blood cell (RBC) transfusion was first performed by English obstetrician James Blundell 200 years ago,[1] it has become one of the most commonly used lifesaving therapies. Historically, RBC transfusion have been viewed as a safe and effective means of treating anemia and improving oxygen delivery to tissues. However, in the early 1980s, transfusion practice began to come under systematic scrutiny.[2,3] The early concern about the safety of blood transfusion revolved around transfusion-related infection. However, the concern about risks of blood transfusion have become diverse and complicated over the last three decades, according to research findings. In the recent literature, blood transfusion has been confirmed as an independent risk factor for mortality, perioperative infection, postinjury multiple organ failure, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and admission to the intensive care unit(ICU).[4-7] Problems about blood transfusion are particularly important in the critically ill patients. Many data suggest that critically ill patients can tolerate hemoglobin levels as low as 7 g/dL and that a “liberal” RBC transfusion strategy may in fact lead to worse clinical outcomes.[8] Actually, RBC transfusion impairs physiologic control of regional vascular tone, induces coagulopathy and negatively impacts immune function and antioxidant system.[9] The 2012 Cochrane analysis reported that restrictive transfusion strategies were more effective than liberal transfusion strategies in reducing hospital mortality significantly among 6,264 patients from 1986 to 2011.[10,11] As such, newer “restrictive” hematocrit threshold for transfusion (e.g., 21%) are now appreciated to be at least noninferior to more “liberal” hematocrit thresholds (e.g., 30%) for broad array of conditions.[9] The efficacy of transfusion in critically ill pediatric patients has been also questioned as is still uncertain for adult critically ill patients. Lacroix et al. suggested, based on their TRIPICU study, that there was no difference in outcomes of stable critically ill children between restrictive (hemoglobin threshold of 7 g/dL) and liberal (hemoglobin threshold of 9.5 g/dL) transfusion strategies.[12] Subgroup analysis of postsurgical and postcardiac surgical patients from the TRIPICU study revealed similar findings. Among pediatric cardiac surgical patients, greater RBC transfusion volumes are associated with prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation, an increase in nosocomial infection rates and duration of hospitalization.[13,14]
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
体外膜氧合支持下患者的输血策略
自从200年前英国产科医生詹姆斯·布伦德尔(James Blundell)首次进行红细胞(RBC)输血以来[1],它已成为最常用的救命疗法之一。历史上,红细胞输血被认为是一种安全有效的治疗贫血和改善组织供氧的方法。然而,在20世纪80年代早期,输血实践开始受到系统的审查。[2,3]早期对输血安全性的关注主要围绕输血相关感染。然而,根据研究发现,在过去三十年中,对输血风险的担忧变得多样化和复杂。在最近的文献中,输血已被证实是死亡率、围手术期感染、损伤后多器官功能衰竭、全身炎症反应综合征和入住重症监护病房(ICU)的独立危险因素。[4-7]输血问题在危重病人中尤为重要。许多数据表明,危重患者可以耐受低至7 g/dL的血红蛋白水平,而“自由”红细胞输血策略实际上可能导致更糟糕的临床结果。[8]实际上,红细胞输注损害了局部血管张力的生理控制,引起凝血功能障碍,并对免疫功能和抗氧化系统产生负面影响。[9]2012年Cochrane分析报告称,在1986年至2011年6264例患者中,限制性输血策略比自由输血策略更有效地显著降低了医院死亡率。[10,11]因此,在广泛的条件下,新的“限制性”输血血细胞比容阈值(例如,21%)现在被认为至少不低于更“自由”的血细胞比容阈值(例如,30%)。[9]输血对危重儿科患者的疗效也受到质疑,对成人危重患者的疗效仍不确定。Lacroix等人根据他们的TRIPICU研究提出,限制性(血红蛋白阈值为7 g/dL)和自由(血红蛋白阈值为9.5 g/dL)输血策略对稳定的危重儿童的结局没有差异。[12]来自TRIPICU研究的手术后和心脏手术后患者的亚组分析显示了类似的结果。在小儿心脏外科患者中,较大的红细胞输血量与机械通气时间延长、医院感染率增加和住院时间延长有关[13,14]。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Delta Neutrophil Index as a Prognostic Marker in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Prevalence and Related Factors of Vitamin D Deficiency in Critically Ill Patients Changes in Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 Level in Patients with Sepsis and Septic Shock Surveillance of Extended-Spectrum β-Lactamase-producing Enterobacteriaceae Carriage in a Japanese Intensive Care Unit: a Retrospective Analysis Successful Hysterectomy and Therapeutic Hypothermia Following Cardiac Arrest due to Postpartum Hemorrhage
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1