Efficacy of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies in patients with traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 5.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Annals of Intensive Care Pub Date : 2024-11-28 DOI:10.1186/s13613-024-01411-1
Xiang Yuan, Sen Zhang, Jun Wan, Cheng Chen, Peng Wang, Shijie Fan, Yuyang Liu, Jingxian Yang, Jiayi Hou, Qiaoyu You, Xiao Li, Kuilin Li, Ziyan Xiang, Yang Rao, Yu Zhang
{"title":"Efficacy of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies in patients with traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Xiang Yuan, Sen Zhang, Jun Wan, Cheng Chen, Peng Wang, Shijie Fan, Yuyang Liu, Jingxian Yang, Jiayi Hou, Qiaoyu You, Xiao Li, Kuilin Li, Ziyan Xiang, Yang Rao, Yu Zhang","doi":"10.1186/s13613-024-01411-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The effects of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and anemia, particularly in adult patients with moderate to severe TBI, remain inconclusive. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the comparative impact of restrictive and liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies among critically ill adult patients with moderate to severe TBI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception through October 20, 2024, to identify randomized controlled trials that compared restrictive (transfusions at a hemoglobin level of ≤ 7 g/dL) and liberal (transfusions at a hemoglobin level of ≤ 9-10 g/dL) transfusion strategies in adult patients with TBI. The primary outcome was mortality, with secondary outcomes including an unfavorable neurological outcome at six months, as determined by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS < 4; or Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended [GOSE] < 6), and the number of units of packed red blood cells (pRBCs) transfused.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five randomized controlled trials involving 1,528 patients were included in the analysis. The results showed that restrictive transfusion, compared to liberal transfusion, had no impact on mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.24, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) or unfavorable neurological outcome at 6 months (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20, I<sup>2</sup> = 47%). Restrictive transfusion was associated with a reduction in the number of units of pRBCs transfused (MD -2.62, 95% CI -3.33 to -1.90, I<sup>2</sup> = 63%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients with TBI, a restrictive transfusion strategy did not reduce the risk of mortality or unfavorable neurological outcome compared with a liberal transfusion strategy.</p>","PeriodicalId":7966,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Intensive Care","volume":"14 1","pages":"177"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-024-01411-1","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The effects of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and anemia, particularly in adult patients with moderate to severe TBI, remain inconclusive. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the comparative impact of restrictive and liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies among critically ill adult patients with moderate to severe TBI.

Methods: We conducted a search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from their inception through October 20, 2024, to identify randomized controlled trials that compared restrictive (transfusions at a hemoglobin level of ≤ 7 g/dL) and liberal (transfusions at a hemoglobin level of ≤ 9-10 g/dL) transfusion strategies in adult patients with TBI. The primary outcome was mortality, with secondary outcomes including an unfavorable neurological outcome at six months, as determined by the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS < 4; or Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended [GOSE] < 6), and the number of units of packed red blood cells (pRBCs) transfused.

Results: Five randomized controlled trials involving 1,528 patients were included in the analysis. The results showed that restrictive transfusion, compared to liberal transfusion, had no impact on mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.24, I2 = 0%) or unfavorable neurological outcome at 6 months (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.20, I2 = 47%). Restrictive transfusion was associated with a reduction in the number of units of pRBCs transfused (MD -2.62, 95% CI -3.33 to -1.90, I2 = 63%).

Conclusion: In patients with TBI, a restrictive transfusion strategy did not reduce the risk of mortality or unfavorable neurological outcome compared with a liberal transfusion strategy.

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
脑外伤患者限制性输血策略与自由输血策略的疗效:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:限制性输血策略和自由输血策略对创伤性脑损伤(TBI)和贫血的重症患者,尤其是中重度TBI成人患者的影响仍无定论。因此,本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估限制性和自由性红细胞输血策略对中重度 TBI 重症成人患者的影响比较:我们检索了PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane对照试验中央登记册从开始到2024年10月20日的内容,以确定在成年创伤性脑损伤患者中比较限制性(血红蛋白水平≤7 g/dL时输血)和自由性(血红蛋白水平≤9-10 g/dL时输血)输血策略的随机对照试验。主要结果是死亡率,次要结果包括格拉斯哥结果量表(GOS Results)显示的6个月后不利的神经系统结果:分析包括五项随机对照试验,涉及 1,528 名患者。结果显示,与自由输血相比,限制性输血对死亡率(RR 1.00,95% CI 0.80 至 1.24,I2 = 0%)或 6 个月后的不良神经功能预后(RR 1.06,95% CI 0.94 至 1.20,I2 = 47%)没有影响。限制性输血与输注 pRBC 数量的减少有关(MD -2.62,95% CI -3.33至-1.90,I2 = 63%):结论:与自由输血策略相比,限制性输血策略并不能降低创伤性脑损伤患者的死亡风险或不利的神经功能预后。
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
Annals of Intensive Care
Annals of Intensive Care CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
14.20
自引率
3.70%
发文量
107
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: Annals of Intensive Care is an online peer-reviewed journal that publishes high-quality review articles and original research papers in the field of intensive care medicine. It targets critical care providers including attending physicians, fellows, residents, nurses, and physiotherapists, who aim to enhance their knowledge and provide optimal care for their patients. The journal's articles are included in various prestigious databases such as CAS, Current contents, DOAJ, Embase, Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition, OCLC, PubMed, PubMed Central, Science Citation Index Expanded, SCOPUS, and Summon by Serial Solutions.
期刊最新文献
Identification and validation of respiratory subphenotypes in patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome undergoing prone position. Efficacy of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies in patients with traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Intracranial pressure trends and clinical outcomes after decompressive hemicraniectomy in malignant middle cerebral artery infarction. Comprehensive assessment and progression of health status during neurorehabilitation in survivors of critical illness: a prospective cohort study. Eadyn's predictive potential: expanding horizons in vasopressor weaning and hemodynamic management.
×
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