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":8.8000,"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.
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.