输血后高钾血症——一项评估证据和风险的系统综述。

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY Transfusion Medicine Reviews Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.tmrv.2022.04.003
Julia Wolf , Louise J. Geneen , Athina Meli , Carolyn Doree , Rebecca Cardigan , Helen V. New
{"title":"输血后高钾血症——一项评估证据和风险的系统综述。","authors":"Julia Wolf ,&nbsp;Louise J. Geneen ,&nbsp;Athina Meli ,&nbsp;Carolyn Doree ,&nbsp;Rebecca Cardigan ,&nbsp;Helen V. New","doi":"10.1016/j.tmrv.2022.04.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Hyperkalaemia following transfusion is widely reported in the literature. Our objective was to critically review recent evidence on hyperkalaemia in association with transfusion and to assess whether specific aspects of transfusion practice can affect the likelihood of developing hyperkalaemia. We searched 9 electronic databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, and Transfusion Evidence Library) using a predefined search strategy, from 2010 to April 8, 2021. Three reviewers performed dual screening, extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We used Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 2 for assessment of RCTs, ROBINS-I for non-RCTs, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We report 7 comparisons of interest in <em>n</em> = 3729 patients from 28 studies (11 RCTs, 4 prospective cohort studies, and 13 retrospective cohort studies): (1) age of blood, (2) washing, (3) filtration, (4) irradiation, (5) fluid type, (6) transfusion vs no transfusion, (7) blood volume/rate. Of the 28 studies included, 25 reported outcomes of potassium (K+) concentration, 17 the number developing hyperkalaemia, 13 mortality, 10 cardiac arrest, and 10 cardiac arrhythmia. Only 16 studies provided analysable data suitable for quantitative analysis. Evidence addressing our outcomes was of very low certainty (downgraded for incomplete outcome data, baseline imbalance, imprecision around the estimate, and small sample size). While 5 studies showed a difference in K+ concentration up to 6 hours posttransfusion for 3 comparisons (age of blood, washing, and transfusion volume/rate), and 3 studies showed a difference in the diagnosis of hyperkalaemia for 2 comparisons (age of blood, and transfusion volume/rate), the evidence was inconsistent across all included studies. There was no difference in any reported outcomes for 4 comparisons (filtration, irradiation, fluid type, or transfusion vs no transfusion). Overall, the reported evidence was too weak to support identification of groups most at risk of hyperkalaemia or to support recommendations on use of short-storage RBC. For other commonly used risk mitigations for hyperkalaemia in transfusion medicine, the (low certainty) evidence was either conflicting or not supportive.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56081,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion Medicine Reviews","volume":"36 3","pages":"Pages 133-142"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hyperkalaemia Following Blood Transfusion–a Systematic Review Assessing Evidence and Risks\",\"authors\":\"Julia Wolf ,&nbsp;Louise J. Geneen ,&nbsp;Athina Meli ,&nbsp;Carolyn Doree ,&nbsp;Rebecca Cardigan ,&nbsp;Helen V. New\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tmrv.2022.04.003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Hyperkalaemia following transfusion is widely reported in the literature. Our objective was to critically review recent evidence on hyperkalaemia in association with transfusion and to assess whether specific aspects of transfusion practice can affect the likelihood of developing hyperkalaemia. We searched 9 electronic databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, and Transfusion Evidence Library) using a predefined search strategy, from 2010 to April 8, 2021. Three reviewers performed dual screening, extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We used Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 2 for assessment of RCTs, ROBINS-I for non-RCTs, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We report 7 comparisons of interest in <em>n</em> = 3729 patients from 28 studies (11 RCTs, 4 prospective cohort studies, and 13 retrospective cohort studies): (1) age of blood, (2) washing, (3) filtration, (4) irradiation, (5) fluid type, (6) transfusion vs no transfusion, (7) blood volume/rate. Of the 28 studies included, 25 reported outcomes of potassium (K+) concentration, 17 the number developing hyperkalaemia, 13 mortality, 10 cardiac arrest, and 10 cardiac arrhythmia. Only 16 studies provided analysable data suitable for quantitative analysis. Evidence addressing our outcomes was of very low certainty (downgraded for incomplete outcome data, baseline imbalance, imprecision around the estimate, and small sample size). While 5 studies showed a difference in K+ concentration up to 6 hours posttransfusion for 3 comparisons (age of blood, washing, and transfusion volume/rate), and 3 studies showed a difference in the diagnosis of hyperkalaemia for 2 comparisons (age of blood, and transfusion volume/rate), the evidence was inconsistent across all included studies. There was no difference in any reported outcomes for 4 comparisons (filtration, irradiation, fluid type, or transfusion vs no transfusion). Overall, the reported evidence was too weak to support identification of groups most at risk of hyperkalaemia or to support recommendations on use of short-storage RBC. For other commonly used risk mitigations for hyperkalaemia in transfusion medicine, the (low certainty) evidence was either conflicting or not supportive.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56081,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transfusion Medicine Reviews\",\"volume\":\"36 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 133-142\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transfusion Medicine Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887796322000128\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfusion Medicine Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887796322000128","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

输血后的高钾血症在文献中被广泛报道。我们的目的是严格审查与输血相关的高钾血症的最新证据,并评估输血实践的特定方面是否会影响发生高钾血症的可能性。从2010年到2021年4月8日,我们使用预定义的搜索策略检索了9个电子数据库(包括MEDLINE、Embase和输血证据库)。三位审稿人进行了双重筛选、提取和偏倚风险评估。我们用Cochrane风险偏倚(ROB) 2评价随机对照试验,用robins - 1评价非随机对照试验,用GRADE评价证据的确定性。我们报告了来自28项研究(11项随机对照试验,4项前瞻性队列研究和13项回顾性队列研究)的n = 3729例患者的7项比较:(1)血液年龄,(2)洗涤,(3)过滤,(4)照射,(5)液体类型,(6)输血与不输血,(7)血容量/率。在纳入的28项研究中,25项报告了钾(K+)浓度的结果,17项报告了高钾血症,13例死亡,10例心脏骤停和10例心律失常。只有16项研究提供了适合定量分析的可分析数据。与我们的结果相关的证据的确定性非常低(由于结果数据不完整、基线不平衡、估计不精确和样本量小而降级)。虽然有5项研究显示输血后6小时K+浓度在3项比较(血液年龄、清洗和输血量/率)中存在差异,有3项研究显示高钾血症的诊断在2项比较(血液年龄和输血量/率)中存在差异,但所有纳入的研究的证据都不一致。4项比较(过滤、辐照、液体类型或输血与不输血)的结果均无差异。总的来说,报告的证据太弱,无法支持高钾血症高危人群的识别,也无法支持使用短贮RBC的建议。对于输血医学中其他常用的高钾血症风险缓解措施,(低确定性)证据要么相互矛盾,要么不支持。
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
Hyperkalaemia Following Blood Transfusion–a Systematic Review Assessing Evidence and Risks

Hyperkalaemia following transfusion is widely reported in the literature. Our objective was to critically review recent evidence on hyperkalaemia in association with transfusion and to assess whether specific aspects of transfusion practice can affect the likelihood of developing hyperkalaemia. We searched 9 electronic databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, and Transfusion Evidence Library) using a predefined search strategy, from 2010 to April 8, 2021. Three reviewers performed dual screening, extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We used Cochrane risk of bias (ROB) 2 for assessment of RCTs, ROBINS-I for non-RCTs, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We report 7 comparisons of interest in n = 3729 patients from 28 studies (11 RCTs, 4 prospective cohort studies, and 13 retrospective cohort studies): (1) age of blood, (2) washing, (3) filtration, (4) irradiation, (5) fluid type, (6) transfusion vs no transfusion, (7) blood volume/rate. Of the 28 studies included, 25 reported outcomes of potassium (K+) concentration, 17 the number developing hyperkalaemia, 13 mortality, 10 cardiac arrest, and 10 cardiac arrhythmia. Only 16 studies provided analysable data suitable for quantitative analysis. Evidence addressing our outcomes was of very low certainty (downgraded for incomplete outcome data, baseline imbalance, imprecision around the estimate, and small sample size). While 5 studies showed a difference in K+ concentration up to 6 hours posttransfusion for 3 comparisons (age of blood, washing, and transfusion volume/rate), and 3 studies showed a difference in the diagnosis of hyperkalaemia for 2 comparisons (age of blood, and transfusion volume/rate), the evidence was inconsistent across all included studies. There was no difference in any reported outcomes for 4 comparisons (filtration, irradiation, fluid type, or transfusion vs no transfusion). Overall, the reported evidence was too weak to support identification of groups most at risk of hyperkalaemia or to support recommendations on use of short-storage RBC. For other commonly used risk mitigations for hyperkalaemia in transfusion medicine, the (low certainty) evidence was either conflicting or not supportive.

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 Reviews
Transfusion Medicine Reviews 医学-血液学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
21 days
期刊介绍: Transfusion Medicine Reviews provides an international forum in English for the publication of scholarly work devoted to the various sub-disciplines that comprise Transfusion Medicine including hemostasis and thrombosis and cellular therapies. The scope of the journal encompasses basic science, practical aspects, laboratory developments, clinical indications, and adverse effects.
期刊最新文献
Single vs Double-Unit Transfusion in Patients With Hematological Disorders Undergoing Chemotherapy or Stem Cell Transplantation: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis Whole Blood Donor Iron Management Across Europe: Experiences and Challenges in Four Blood Establishments Single-Unit Transfusion Policy in Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Less is Not Worse Ultra-Massive Transfusion: Predictors of Occurrence and In-Hospital mortality From the Australian and New Zealand Massive Transfusion Registry (ANZ-MTR) Beta-Amyloid Related Neurodegenerative and Neurovascular Diseases: Potential Implications for Transfusion Medicine
×
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