Liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategies in subarachnoid hemorrhage: a secondary analysis of the TRAIN study

IF 9.3 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Critical Care Pub Date : 2025-02-07 DOI:10.1186/s13054-025-05270-5
Chahnez Taleb, Elisa Gouvea Bogossian, Carla Bittencour Rynkowski, Kirsten Møller, Piet Lormans, Manuel Quintana Diaz, Anselmo Caricato, Luigi Zattera, Pedro Kurtz, Geert Meyfroidt, Herve Quintard, Maria Celeste Dias, Angelo Giacomucci, Charlotte Castelain, Russell Chabanne, Pilar Marcos-Neira, Stepani Bendel, Ahmed Subhy Alsheikhly, Mohamed Elbahnasawy, Samuel Gay, Maximilian D’Onofrio, Konstantin A. Popugaev, Nikolaos Markou, Pierre Bouzat, Jean-Louis Vincent, Fabio Silvio Taccone
{"title":"Liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategies in subarachnoid hemorrhage: a secondary analysis of the TRAIN study","authors":"Chahnez Taleb, Elisa Gouvea Bogossian, Carla Bittencour Rynkowski, Kirsten Møller, Piet Lormans, Manuel Quintana Diaz, Anselmo Caricato, Luigi Zattera, Pedro Kurtz, Geert Meyfroidt, Herve Quintard, Maria Celeste Dias, Angelo Giacomucci, Charlotte Castelain, Russell Chabanne, Pilar Marcos-Neira, Stepani Bendel, Ahmed Subhy Alsheikhly, Mohamed Elbahnasawy, Samuel Gay, Maximilian D’Onofrio, Konstantin A. Popugaev, Nikolaos Markou, Pierre Bouzat, Jean-Louis Vincent, Fabio Silvio Taccone","doi":"10.1186/s13054-025-05270-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The optimal hemoglobin (Hb) threshold to trigger red blood cell transfusions (RBCT) in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) patients is unclear. This study evaluated the impact of liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategies on neurological outcome in patients with SAH. This is a pre-planned secondary analysis of the “TRansfusion Strategies in Acute brain INjured Patients” (TRAIN) study. We included all SAH patients from the original study that were randomized to receive RBCT when Hb levels dropped below 9 g/dL (liberal group) or 7 g/dL (restrictive group). The primary outcome was an unfavorable neurological outcome at 180 days, defined by a Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended score of 1–5. Of the 190 SAH patients in the trial, 188 (98.9%) had data available for the primary outcome, with 86 (45.3%) in the liberal group and 102 (53.6%) in the restrictive group. Patients in the liberal group were older than in the restrictive group, but otherwise had similar baseline characteristics. Patients in the liberal group received more RBCT and showed higher Hb levels over time. At 180 days, 57 (66.3%) patients in the liberal group and 78 (76.4%) in the restrictive group had unfavorable outcomes (risk ratio, RR 0.87; 95% confidence intervals, 95% CI 0.71–1.04). Patients in the liberal group had a significantly lower risk of cerebral ischemia (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.41–0.97). In a multivariate analysis, randomization to the liberal group was associated with a lower risk of unfavorable outcome (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70–0.99). A liberal transfusion strategy was not associated with a lower incidence of unfavorable outcome after SAH when compared to a restrictive strategy. However, in a multivariable analysis adjusted for confounders randomization to the liberal group was associated with lower risk of unfavorable outcome. The occurrence of cerebral ischemia was significantly lower in the liberal transfusion strategy group. ClinicalTrials.gov number—NCT02968654 registered on November 16th, 2016.","PeriodicalId":10811,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05270-5","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

The optimal hemoglobin (Hb) threshold to trigger red blood cell transfusions (RBCT) in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) patients is unclear. This study evaluated the impact of liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategies on neurological outcome in patients with SAH. This is a pre-planned secondary analysis of the “TRansfusion Strategies in Acute brain INjured Patients” (TRAIN) study. We included all SAH patients from the original study that were randomized to receive RBCT when Hb levels dropped below 9 g/dL (liberal group) or 7 g/dL (restrictive group). The primary outcome was an unfavorable neurological outcome at 180 days, defined by a Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended score of 1–5. Of the 190 SAH patients in the trial, 188 (98.9%) had data available for the primary outcome, with 86 (45.3%) in the liberal group and 102 (53.6%) in the restrictive group. Patients in the liberal group were older than in the restrictive group, but otherwise had similar baseline characteristics. Patients in the liberal group received more RBCT and showed higher Hb levels over time. At 180 days, 57 (66.3%) patients in the liberal group and 78 (76.4%) in the restrictive group had unfavorable outcomes (risk ratio, RR 0.87; 95% confidence intervals, 95% CI 0.71–1.04). Patients in the liberal group had a significantly lower risk of cerebral ischemia (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.41–0.97). In a multivariate analysis, randomization to the liberal group was associated with a lower risk of unfavorable outcome (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70–0.99). A liberal transfusion strategy was not associated with a lower incidence of unfavorable outcome after SAH when compared to a restrictive strategy. However, in a multivariable analysis adjusted for confounders randomization to the liberal group was associated with lower risk of unfavorable outcome. The occurrence of cerebral ischemia was significantly lower in the liberal transfusion strategy group. ClinicalTrials.gov number—NCT02968654 registered on November 16th, 2016.
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
蛛网膜下腔出血的自由输血与限制性输血策略:TRAIN研究的二次分析
蛛网膜下腔出血(SAH)患者触发红细胞输血(RBCT)的最佳血红蛋白(Hb)阈值尚不清楚。本研究评估了自由和限制性输血策略对SAH患者神经系统预后的影响。这是对“急性脑损伤患者输血策略”(TRAIN)研究的预先计划的二次分析。我们纳入了原始研究中的所有SAH患者,当Hb水平低于9 g/dL(自由组)或7 g/dL(限制组)时,随机接受RBCT。主要转归是180天的神经系统不良转归,格拉斯哥转归量表扩展评分为1-5分。在试验的190例SAH患者中,188例(98.9%)有主要结局的数据,其中86例(45.3%)在自由组,102例(53.6%)在限制组。自由组的患者比限制组的患者年龄大,但其他方面具有相似的基线特征。自由组患者接受更多的RBCT,随着时间的推移显示出更高的Hb水平。180天,自由组57例(66.3%)患者出现不良结局,限制组78例(76.4%)患者出现不良结局(风险比,RR 0.87;95%置信区间,95% CI 0.71-1.04)。自由组患者脑缺血风险显著降低(RR 0.63;95% ci 0.41-0.97)。在多变量分析中,随机分配到自由组与不良结果的风险较低相关(RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.99)。与限制性输血策略相比,自由输血策略与SAH后不良结局发生率较低无关。然而,在一项多变量分析中,对混杂因素进行调整后,随机分配到自由组与不良结果的风险较低相关。自由输血组脑缺血发生率明显降低。ClinicalTrials.gov注册号nct02968654于2016年11月16日注册。
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
Critical Care
Critical Care 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
20.60
自引率
3.30%
发文量
348
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care is an esteemed international medical journal that undergoes a rigorous peer-review process to maintain its high quality standards. Its primary objective is to enhance the healthcare services offered to critically ill patients. To achieve this, the journal focuses on gathering, exchanging, disseminating, and endorsing evidence-based information that is highly relevant to intensivists. By doing so, Critical Care seeks to provide a thorough and inclusive examination of the intensive care field.
期刊最新文献
Urinary angiopoietin-2 is associated with adverse kidney outcomes in the ICU. Critical illness at extreme age: outcomes and clinical characteristics of centenarian ICU admissions in Australia and New Zealand. Frailty and long-term mortality in cardiogenic shock: a binational multicentre cohort study. Circulating DPP3 limits efficacy of angiotensin II infusion in septic shock. Factors influencing the interpretation of meta-analytic findings in cangrelor research.
×
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:604180095
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