围手术期输血研究(PETS):宽松的输血方案能否改善接受非心脏手术的高风险心血管患者的预后?随机对照试验研究。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEMATOLOGY Transfusion Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-18 DOI:10.1111/tme.13058
Samir Ali, Steven Roubos, Sanne E Hoeks, Serge J C Verbrugge, Ankie W M M Koopman-van Gemert, Robert Jan Stolker, Felix van Lier
{"title":"围手术期输血研究(PETS):宽松的输血方案能否改善接受非心脏手术的高风险心血管患者的预后?随机对照试验研究。","authors":"Samir Ali, Steven Roubos, Sanne E Hoeks, Serge J C Verbrugge, Ankie W M M Koopman-van Gemert, Robert Jan Stolker, Felix van Lier","doi":"10.1111/tme.13058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Small studies have shown that patients with advanced coronary artery disease might benefit from a more liberal blood transfusion strategy. The goal of this pilot study was to test the feasibility of a blood transfusion intervention in a group of vascular surgery patients who have elevated cardiac troponins in rest.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a single-centre, randomised controlled pilot study. Patients with a preoperative elevated high-sensitive troponin T undergoing non-cardiac vascular surgery were randomised between a liberal transfusion regime (haemoglobin >10.4 g/dL) and a restrictive transfusion regime (haemoglobin 8.0-9.6 g/dL) during the first 3 days after surgery. The primary outcome was defined as a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction or unscheduled coronary revascularization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total 499 patients were screened; 92 were included and 50 patients were randomised. Postoperative haemoglobin was different between the intervention and control group; 10.6 versus 9.8, 10.4 versus 9.4, 10.9 versus 9.4 g/dL on day one, two and three respectively (p < 0.05). The primary outcome occurred in four patients (16%) in the liberal transfusion group and in two patients (8%) in control group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This pilot study shows that the studied transfusion protocol was able to create a clinically significant difference in perioperative haemoglobin levels. Randomisation was possible in 10% of the screened patients. A large definitive trial should be possible to provide evidence whether a liberal transfusion strategy could decrease the incidence of postoperative myocardial infarction in high risk surgical patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":23306,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"398-404"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perioperative transfusion study (PETS): Does a liberal transfusion protocol improve outcome in high-risk cardiovascular patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery? A randomised controlled pilot study.\",\"authors\":\"Samir Ali, Steven Roubos, Sanne E Hoeks, Serge J C Verbrugge, Ankie W M M Koopman-van Gemert, Robert Jan Stolker, Felix van Lier\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/tme.13058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Small studies have shown that patients with advanced coronary artery disease might benefit from a more liberal blood transfusion strategy. The goal of this pilot study was to test the feasibility of a blood transfusion intervention in a group of vascular surgery patients who have elevated cardiac troponins in rest.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a single-centre, randomised controlled pilot study. Patients with a preoperative elevated high-sensitive troponin T undergoing non-cardiac vascular surgery were randomised between a liberal transfusion regime (haemoglobin >10.4 g/dL) and a restrictive transfusion regime (haemoglobin 8.0-9.6 g/dL) during the first 3 days after surgery. The primary outcome was defined as a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction or unscheduled coronary revascularization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total 499 patients were screened; 92 were included and 50 patients were randomised. Postoperative haemoglobin was different between the intervention and control group; 10.6 versus 9.8, 10.4 versus 9.4, 10.9 versus 9.4 g/dL on day one, two and three respectively (p < 0.05). The primary outcome occurred in four patients (16%) in the liberal transfusion group and in two patients (8%) in control group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This pilot study shows that the studied transfusion protocol was able to create a clinically significant difference in perioperative haemoglobin levels. Randomisation was possible in 10% of the screened patients. A large definitive trial should be possible to provide evidence whether a liberal transfusion strategy could decrease the incidence of postoperative myocardial infarction in high risk surgical patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transfusion Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"398-404\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transfusion Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/tme.13058\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfusion Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/tme.13058","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:小型研究显示,晚期冠状动脉疾病患者可能会从更宽松的输血策略中获益。本试验研究的目的是测试在静息状态下心肌肌钙蛋白升高的一组血管外科患者中进行输血干预的可行性:我们进行了一项单中心随机对照试验研究。我们对接受非心脏血管手术的术前高敏肌钙蛋白 T 升高的患者进行了随机对照,在术后前 3 天内,患者可选择自由输血方案(血红蛋白 >10.4 g/dL)或限制输血方案(血红蛋白 8.0-9.6 g/dL)。主要结果定义为全因死亡率、心肌梗死或计划外冠状动脉血运重建的复合终点:共筛查了 499 名患者,其中 92 人被纳入,50 人被随机分配。干预组和对照组的术后血红蛋白有差异;第一天、第二天和第三天分别为 10.6 对 9.8、10.4 对 9.4、10.9 对 9.4 g/dL(P 结论:干预组和对照组的术后血红蛋白有差异:这项试点研究表明,所研究的输血方案能够在围手术期血红蛋白水平上产生显著的临床差异。在筛选出的患者中,10% 的患者可以进行随机分配。应该可以进行一项大型的确定性试验,以证明自由输血策略是否能降低高风险手术患者术后心肌梗死的发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Perioperative transfusion study (PETS): Does a liberal transfusion protocol improve outcome in high-risk cardiovascular patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery? A randomised controlled pilot study.

Background: Small studies have shown that patients with advanced coronary artery disease might benefit from a more liberal blood transfusion strategy. The goal of this pilot study was to test the feasibility of a blood transfusion intervention in a group of vascular surgery patients who have elevated cardiac troponins in rest.

Methods: We conducted a single-centre, randomised controlled pilot study. Patients with a preoperative elevated high-sensitive troponin T undergoing non-cardiac vascular surgery were randomised between a liberal transfusion regime (haemoglobin >10.4 g/dL) and a restrictive transfusion regime (haemoglobin 8.0-9.6 g/dL) during the first 3 days after surgery. The primary outcome was defined as a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction or unscheduled coronary revascularization.

Results: In total 499 patients were screened; 92 were included and 50 patients were randomised. Postoperative haemoglobin was different between the intervention and control group; 10.6 versus 9.8, 10.4 versus 9.4, 10.9 versus 9.4 g/dL on day one, two and three respectively (p < 0.05). The primary outcome occurred in four patients (16%) in the liberal transfusion group and in two patients (8%) in control group.

Conclusion: This pilot study shows that the studied transfusion protocol was able to create a clinically significant difference in perioperative haemoglobin levels. Randomisation was possible in 10% of the screened patients. A large definitive trial should be possible to provide evidence whether a liberal transfusion strategy could decrease the incidence of postoperative myocardial infarction in high risk surgical patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Transfusion Medicine
Transfusion Medicine 医学-血液学
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
96
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Transfusion Medicine publishes articles on transfusion medicine in its widest context, including blood transfusion practice (blood procurement, pharmaceutical, clinical, scientific, computing and documentary aspects), immunohaematology, immunogenetics, histocompatibility, medico-legal applications, and related molecular biology and biotechnology. In addition to original articles, which may include brief communications and case reports, the journal contains a regular educational section (based on invited reviews and state-of-the-art reports), technical section (including quality assurance and current practice guidelines), leading articles, letters to the editor, occasional historical articles and signed book reviews. Some lectures from Society meetings that are likely to be of general interest to readers of the Journal may be published at the discretion of the Editor and subject to the availability of space in the Journal.
期刊最新文献
Factors influencing white blood cell mobilisation in healthy granulocyte donors. Validation of current commercially-available devices to thaw pooled, solvent/detergent-treated human plasma. Acute normovolemic haemodilution to reduce allogeneic red blood cell transfusion in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. An observational study. An unusual case of reagent interference in transfusion medicine workup: Pan reactive indirect antiglobulin test caused by commercial saline solution. PacBio third-generation sequencing detects a new variant, c.27delC, in exon 1 of the ABO gene resulting in a weak B phenotype.
×
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