The safety and efficacy of transfusing red blood cells stored for different durations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Fu Cheng, Dongmei Yang, Jie Chen, Li Qin, Bin Tan
{"title":"The safety and efficacy of transfusing red blood cells stored for different durations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Fu Cheng, Dongmei Yang, Jie Chen, Li Qin, Bin Tan","doi":"10.1093/labmed/lmae049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this work was to resolve the uncertainty of whether transfusion of fresher red blood cells (RBCs) is better or not with regard to the safety and efficacy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review was performed in accordance with our protocol registered on PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022379183).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After a literature search, 13,247 records were identified, and 26 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 53,859 participants were eligible and included in this review. The results in our review suggested that there was no significant effect of fresher vs older RBCs on mortality (relative risk [RR] = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.99-1.09; P = .39; I2 = 0%), transfusion reactions (RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.57-1.33; P = .64; I2 = 0%). However, the transfusion of fresher RBCs might increase the risk of nosocomial infection (RR = 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02-1.20; P = .02; I2 = 0%), whereas there was no significant difference in the fresh vs old subgroup (RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.12; P = .28; I2 = 0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study updated and reinforced the evidence of previously published systematic reviews that support the safety and efficiency of current practice of issuing the oldest available RBCs in the blood bank inventory.</p>","PeriodicalId":94124,"journal":{"name":"Laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":"776-784"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/labmed/lmae049","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

Objective: The aim of this work was to resolve the uncertainty of whether transfusion of fresher red blood cells (RBCs) is better or not with regard to the safety and efficacy.

Methods: This systematic review was performed in accordance with our protocol registered on PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022379183).

Results: After a literature search, 13,247 records were identified, and 26 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 53,859 participants were eligible and included in this review. The results in our review suggested that there was no significant effect of fresher vs older RBCs on mortality (relative risk [RR] = 1.04; 95% CI, 0.99-1.09; P = .39; I2 = 0%), transfusion reactions (RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.57-1.33; P = .64; I2 = 0%). However, the transfusion of fresher RBCs might increase the risk of nosocomial infection (RR = 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02-1.20; P = .02; I2 = 0%), whereas there was no significant difference in the fresh vs old subgroup (RR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.12; P = .28; I2 = 0%).

Conclusion: Our study updated and reinforced the evidence of previously published systematic reviews that support the safety and efficiency of current practice of issuing the oldest available RBCs in the blood bank inventory.

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
输注储存不同时间的红细胞的安全性和有效性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的这项工作旨在解决输注新鲜红细胞(RBC)在安全性和有效性方面是否更好的不确定性:这项系统性综述是根据我们在 PROSPERO(https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022379183)上注册的协议进行的:经过文献检索,共找到 13,247 条记录,符合条件并纳入本次综述的随机对照试验(RCT)有 26 项,涉及 53,859 名参与者。综述结果表明,新鲜 RBC 与陈旧 RBC 相比,对死亡率(相对风险 [RR] = 1.04;95% CI,0.99-1.09;P = .39;I2 = 0%)、输血反应(RR = 0.87;95% CI,0.57-1.33;P = .64;I2 = 0%)没有显著影响。然而,输注较新鲜的红细胞可能会增加院内感染的风险(RR = 1.11;95% CI,1.02-1.20;P = .02;I2 = 0%),而新鲜与陈旧亚组没有显著差异(RR = 0.87;95% CI,0.68-1.12;P = .28;I2 = 0%):我们的研究更新并加强了之前发表的系统性综述的证据,这些证据支持目前发放血库库存中最陈旧的红细胞的做法的安全性和效率。
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
Serologic detection of regenerating protein I alpha by time-resolved fluoroimmunoassay and its clinical value in gastric cancer. Jerk (d(acceleration)/dt) as an operative variable in pneumatic tube transport (PTT). Therapeutic plasma exchange for hyperviscosity syndrome in IgA multiple myeloma. Navigating the conundrum of co-existing autoantibodies and alloantibodies in a case of Evans syndrome. Red blood cell alloimmunization in transfused patients with myelodysplastic syndromes: a retrospective study from northern China.
×
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