Beyond Hemoglobin Thresholds: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of RBC Transfusion Decisions in ICU Patients.

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Critical Care Medicine Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-28 DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000006666
Walter Sunny Dzik, Brian Healy, Maxwell Roth, Henry Paik, Patricia Brunker, Kristen Ruby, Julia Collins, Lorenzo Berra, Kenneth Shelton, Crystal M North, Robert Makar
{"title":"Beyond Hemoglobin Thresholds: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of RBC Transfusion Decisions in ICU Patients.","authors":"Walter Sunny Dzik, Brian Healy, Maxwell Roth, Henry Paik, Patricia Brunker, Kristen Ruby, Julia Collins, Lorenzo Berra, Kenneth Shelton, Crystal M North, Robert Makar","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006666","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Blood transfusion is an essential therapy for patients receiving intensive care. The objective of the study was to better characterize the factors influencing the decision to transfuse RBCs during intensive care.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort analysis using a new analytic method called decision time-interval analysis, which segments care into objectively defined sequential time intervals.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Three ICUs during the period from January 2018 to June 2023.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Adult ICU patients 18 years old or older.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>The pre-study planned outcome was the likelihood of RBC transfusion during each time interval of care. We analyzed 199,296 decision time-intervals occurring during 19,439 ICU encounters of 18,544 patients ranging in age from 18 to 103 years. The pre-transfusion hemoglobin concentration did not fully account for the likelihood of transfusion. Multivariable logistic regression analysis using either generalized linear mixed-effects or generalized estimating equations was used to model the impact of other clinical factors present at the time of the decision to transfuse for patients with hemoglobins in the 7-9 g/dL range. Factors that were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of transfusion included a decline in hemoglobin from the prior value, chest tube drainage, concurrent transfusion of plasma or platelets, prior RBC transfusion, use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, patient age, and male sex. The odds ratios for the principal clinical factors were significantly different in medical, surgical, and cardiac surgery ICUs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The decision to transfuse RBC during ICU care is multifactorial and not adequately explained by the pre-transfusion hemoglobin concentration alone. Our findings have direct relevance for clinical guidelines regarding transfusion care, the interpretation of prior studies of transfusion based on hemoglobin concentration, and the opportunity for predictive analytics to improve patient outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"e1235-e1246"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006666","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Blood transfusion is an essential therapy for patients receiving intensive care. The objective of the study was to better characterize the factors influencing the decision to transfuse RBCs during intensive care.

Design: Retrospective cohort analysis using a new analytic method called decision time-interval analysis, which segments care into objectively defined sequential time intervals.

Setting: Three ICUs during the period from January 2018 to June 2023.

Patients: Adult ICU patients 18 years old or older.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: The pre-study planned outcome was the likelihood of RBC transfusion during each time interval of care. We analyzed 199,296 decision time-intervals occurring during 19,439 ICU encounters of 18,544 patients ranging in age from 18 to 103 years. The pre-transfusion hemoglobin concentration did not fully account for the likelihood of transfusion. Multivariable logistic regression analysis using either generalized linear mixed-effects or generalized estimating equations was used to model the impact of other clinical factors present at the time of the decision to transfuse for patients with hemoglobins in the 7-9 g/dL range. Factors that were significantly associated with an increased likelihood of transfusion included a decline in hemoglobin from the prior value, chest tube drainage, concurrent transfusion of plasma or platelets, prior RBC transfusion, use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, patient age, and male sex. The odds ratios for the principal clinical factors were significantly different in medical, surgical, and cardiac surgery ICUs.

Conclusions: The decision to transfuse RBC during ICU care is multifactorial and not adequately explained by the pre-transfusion hemoglobin concentration alone. Our findings have direct relevance for clinical guidelines regarding transfusion care, the interpretation of prior studies of transfusion based on hemoglobin concentration, and the opportunity for predictive analytics to improve patient outcomes.

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
超过血红蛋白阈值:ICU患者红细胞输血决策的回顾性队列分析。
目的:输血是重症监护病人必不可少的治疗方法。该研究的目的是更好地描述在重症监护期间影响输血决定的因素。设计:回顾性队列分析采用一种称为决策时间区间分析的新分析方法,该方法将护理分成客观定义的顺序时间区间。设置:2018年1月至2023年6月期间为3个icu。患者:18岁以上ICU成人患者。干预措施:没有。测量和主要结果:研究前计划的结果是在每个护理时间间隔内红细胞输血的可能性。我们分析了18,544例年龄从18岁到103岁的19,439例ICU就诊患者的199,296个决策时间间隔。输血前血红蛋白浓度不能完全说明输血的可能性。使用广义线性混合效应或广义估计方程进行多变量logistic回归分析,对血红蛋白在7-9 g/dL范围内的患者决定输血时存在的其他临床因素的影响进行建模。与输血可能性增加显著相关的因素包括血红蛋白较先前值下降、胸管引流、同时输注血浆或血小板、先前输注红细胞、使用体外膜氧合、血管加压剂、机械通气、肾脏替代治疗、患者年龄和男性。主要临床因素的优势比在内科、外科和心脏外科icu中有显著差异。结论:在ICU护理期间决定输注红细胞是多因素的,输血前血红蛋白浓度不能充分解释。我们的研究结果与输血护理的临床指南、基于血红蛋白浓度的先前输血研究的解释以及预测分析改善患者预后的机会直接相关。
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 Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
期刊最新文献
Clinical Criteria for the Definition of Refractory Septic Shock: A Joint Delphi Consensus from the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2026. Sepsis and Subsequent Psychiatric Morbidity: A Nationwide Population-Based Matched Cohort Study, 2008-2019. Ready for Donation, Not for Death: A Qualitative Study of Families' Experience With Controlled Donation After Circulatory Determination of Death in Intensive Care. Executive Summary: Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2026.
×
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