Liberal or Restrictive Transfusion Strategy in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

IF 96.2 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Shane W English, Anthony Delaney, Dean A Fergusson, Michaël Chassé, Alexis F Turgeon, François Lauzier, Angie Tuttle, Ofer Sadan, Donald E Griesdale, Gary Redekop, Martin Chapman, Mathew Hannouche, Andreas Kramer, Ian Seppelt, Andrew Udy, Demetrios J Kutsogiannis, Ryan Zarychanski, Frédérick D'Aragon, J Gordon Boyd, Gavin Salt, Judith Bellapart, Gordon Wood, Luis Cava, Gwynedd Pickett, Lauren Koffman, Irene Watpool, Frances Bass, Naomi Hammond, Tim Ramsay, Ranjeeta Mallick, Damon C Scales, Christopher R Andersen, Emily Fitzgerald, Phil Talbot, Dar Dowlatshahi, John Sinclair, Jason Acker, Shawn C Marshall, Lauralyn McIntyre
{"title":"Liberal or Restrictive Transfusion Strategy in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.","authors":"Shane W English, Anthony Delaney, Dean A Fergusson, Michaël Chassé, Alexis F Turgeon, François Lauzier, Angie Tuttle, Ofer Sadan, Donald E Griesdale, Gary Redekop, Martin Chapman, Mathew Hannouche, Andreas Kramer, Ian Seppelt, Andrew Udy, Demetrios J Kutsogiannis, Ryan Zarychanski, Frédérick D'Aragon, J Gordon Boyd, Gavin Salt, Judith Bellapart, Gordon Wood, Luis Cava, Gwynedd Pickett, Lauren Koffman, Irene Watpool, Frances Bass, Naomi Hammond, Tim Ramsay, Ranjeeta Mallick, Damon C Scales, Christopher R Andersen, Emily Fitzgerald, Phil Talbot, Dar Dowlatshahi, John Sinclair, Jason Acker, Shawn C Marshall, Lauralyn McIntyre","doi":"10.1056/NEJMoa2410962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The effect of a liberal red-cell transfusion strategy as compared with a restrictive strategy in patients during the critical care period after an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage is unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We randomly assigned critically ill adults with acute aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and anemia to a liberal strategy (mandatory transfusion at a hemoglobin level of ≤10 g per deciliter) or a restrictive strategy (optional transfusion at a hemoglobin level of ≤8 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was an unfavorable neurologic outcome, defined as a score of 4 or higher on the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included 12-month functional independence as assessed with the Functional Independence Measure (FIM; scores range from 18 to 126) and quality of life as assessed with the EuroQol five-dimension, five-level (EQ-5D-5L) utility index (scores range from -0.1 to 0.95) and a visual analogue scale (VAS; scores range from 0 to 100); on each assessment, higher scores indicate better health status or quality of life.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 742 patients underwent randomization at 23 centers. The analysis of the primary outcome at 12 months included 725 patients (97.7%). An unfavorable neurologic outcome occurred in 122 of 364 patients (33.5%) in the liberal-strategy group and in 136 of 361 patients (37.7%) in the restrictive-strategy group (risk ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 1.09; P = 0.22). The mean (±SD) FIM score was 82.8±54.6 in the liberal-strategy group and 79.8±54.5 in the restrictive-strategy group (mean difference, 3.01; 95% CI, -5.49 to 11.51). The mean EQ-5D-5L utility index score was 0.5±0.4 in both groups (mean difference, 0.02; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.09). The mean VAS score was 52.1±37.5 in the liberal-strategy group and 50±37.1 in the restrictive-strategy group (mean difference, 2.08; 95% CI, -3.76 to 7.93). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not result in a lower risk of an unfavorable neurologic outcome at 12 months than a restrictive strategy. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; SAHARA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03309579.).</p>","PeriodicalId":54725,"journal":{"name":"New England Journal of Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":96.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New England Journal of Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2410962","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The effect of a liberal red-cell transfusion strategy as compared with a restrictive strategy in patients during the critical care period after an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage is unclear.

Methods: We randomly assigned critically ill adults with acute aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and anemia to a liberal strategy (mandatory transfusion at a hemoglobin level of ≤10 g per deciliter) or a restrictive strategy (optional transfusion at a hemoglobin level of ≤8 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was an unfavorable neurologic outcome, defined as a score of 4 or higher on the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included 12-month functional independence as assessed with the Functional Independence Measure (FIM; scores range from 18 to 126) and quality of life as assessed with the EuroQol five-dimension, five-level (EQ-5D-5L) utility index (scores range from -0.1 to 0.95) and a visual analogue scale (VAS; scores range from 0 to 100); on each assessment, higher scores indicate better health status or quality of life.

Results: A total of 742 patients underwent randomization at 23 centers. The analysis of the primary outcome at 12 months included 725 patients (97.7%). An unfavorable neurologic outcome occurred in 122 of 364 patients (33.5%) in the liberal-strategy group and in 136 of 361 patients (37.7%) in the restrictive-strategy group (risk ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 1.09; P = 0.22). The mean (±SD) FIM score was 82.8±54.6 in the liberal-strategy group and 79.8±54.5 in the restrictive-strategy group (mean difference, 3.01; 95% CI, -5.49 to 11.51). The mean EQ-5D-5L utility index score was 0.5±0.4 in both groups (mean difference, 0.02; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.09). The mean VAS score was 52.1±37.5 in the liberal-strategy group and 50±37.1 in the restrictive-strategy group (mean difference, 2.08; 95% CI, -3.76 to 7.93). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups.

Conclusions: In patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not result in a lower risk of an unfavorable neurologic outcome at 12 months than a restrictive strategy. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; SAHARA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03309579.).

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
New England Journal of Medicine
New England Journal of Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
145.40
自引率
0.60%
发文量
1839
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) stands as the foremost medical journal and website worldwide. With an impressive history spanning over two centuries, NEJM boasts a consistent publication of superb, peer-reviewed research and engaging clinical content. Our primary objective revolves around delivering high-caliber information and findings at the juncture of biomedical science and clinical practice. We strive to present this knowledge in formats that are not only comprehensible but also hold practical value, effectively influencing healthcare practices and ultimately enhancing patient outcomes.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信