Liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategy for acute brain injury: A meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials.

IF 4.7 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Wen-Wen Tsai, Jheng-Yan Wu, Kuan-Hsien Lu, Hong-Xiang Zheng, Hung-Hsi Tan, Chih-Cheng Lai
{"title":"Liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategy for acute brain injury: A meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials.","authors":"Wen-Wen Tsai, Jheng-Yan Wu, Kuan-Hsien Lu, Hong-Xiang Zheng, Hung-Hsi Tan, Chih-Cheng Lai","doi":"10.1016/j.accpm.2025.101566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Acute brain injury is a critical health challenge with substantial mortality and morbidity. While anemia is common in these patients and may worsen outcomes, the optimal red blood cell transfusion strategy remains controversial.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We conducted a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategies in patients with acute brain injury.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched through December 15, 2024, for RCT comparing liberal (hemoglobin threshold 9-10 g/dL) versus restrictive (hemoglobin threshold 7-8 g/dL) transfusion strategies in adults with acute brain injury. The primary outcome was an unfavorable neurological outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six RCTs involving 2,599 patients were included. There was no significant difference in unfavorable neurological outcomes between liberal and restrictive strategies (risk ratio [RR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.14; p = 0.70). Similarly, no differences were observed in overall mortality (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.12; p = 0.75), hospital mortality (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.31; p = 0.89), or intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.91; p = 0.53). Although transfusion reaction was non-significantly more frequent with liberal transfusion (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.35 to 3.58; p = 0.84).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with acute brain injury, a restrictive transfusion strategy was not associated with worse neurological outcomes or higher mortality compared to a liberal strategy.</p><p><strong>Implications for clinical practice: </strong>Maintaining hemoglobin levels above 7-8 g/dL may be effective for patients with acute brain injury, potentially reducing unnecessary transfusions and associated risks. META-ANALYSIS REGISTRATION: registered on PROSPERO under number CRD42025639745).</p>","PeriodicalId":48762,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"101566"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia Critical Care & Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accpm.2025.101566","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Acute brain injury is a critical health challenge with substantial mortality and morbidity. While anemia is common in these patients and may worsen outcomes, the optimal red blood cell transfusion strategy remains controversial.

Objective: We conducted a meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategies in patients with acute brain injury.

Methods: Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched through December 15, 2024, for RCT comparing liberal (hemoglobin threshold 9-10 g/dL) versus restrictive (hemoglobin threshold 7-8 g/dL) transfusion strategies in adults with acute brain injury. The primary outcome was an unfavorable neurological outcome.

Results: Six RCTs involving 2,599 patients were included. There was no significant difference in unfavorable neurological outcomes between liberal and restrictive strategies (risk ratio [RR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.14; p = 0.70). Similarly, no differences were observed in overall mortality (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.12; p = 0.75), hospital mortality (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.31; p = 0.89), or intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.28 to 1.91; p = 0.53). Although transfusion reaction was non-significantly more frequent with liberal transfusion (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.35 to 3.58; p = 0.84).

Conclusions: In patients with acute brain injury, a restrictive transfusion strategy was not associated with worse neurological outcomes or higher mortality compared to a liberal strategy.

Implications for clinical practice: Maintaining hemoglobin levels above 7-8 g/dL may be effective for patients with acute brain injury, potentially reducing unnecessary transfusions and associated risks. META-ANALYSIS REGISTRATION: registered on PROSPERO under number CRD42025639745).

急性脑损伤的自由输血vs限制性输血策略:随机临床试验的荟萃分析。
背景:急性脑损伤是一种严重的健康挑战,具有很高的死亡率和发病率。虽然贫血在这些患者中很常见,并可能使预后恶化,但最佳的红细胞输注策略仍然存在争议。目的:我们对随机对照试验(RCTs)进行了一项荟萃分析,比较了急性脑损伤患者的自由输血和限制性输血策略。方法:检索Pubmed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库,检索截止2024年12月15日的RCT,比较急性脑损伤成人自由输血策略(血红蛋白阈值9-10 g/dL)和限制性输血策略(血红蛋白阈值7-8 g/dL)。主要结局是不利的神经预后。结果:纳入6项随机对照试验,共2599例患者。自由和限制策略在神经系统不良预后方面无显著差异(风险比[RR], 0.97;95%置信区间[CI], 0.83 ~ 1.14;p = 0.70)。同样,在总死亡率方面也没有观察到差异(RR, 0.98;95% CI, 0.85 ~ 1.12;p = 0.75),住院死亡率(RR, 1.02;95% CI, 0.79 ~ 1.31;p = 0.89)或重症监护病房(ICU)死亡率(RR, 0.74;95% CI, 0.28 ~ 1.91;p = 0.53)。尽管输血反应在自由输血组发生率无显著性增高(RR, 1.13;95% CI, 0.35 ~ 3.58;p = 0.84)。结论:在急性脑损伤患者中,与自由输血策略相比,限制性输血策略与更差的神经预后或更高的死亡率无关。临床实践意义:维持血红蛋白水平高于7-8 g/dL可能对急性脑损伤患者有效,可能减少不必要的输血和相关风险。meta分析注册:在PROSPERO注册,编号CRD42025639745)。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
5.50%
发文量
150
审稿时长
18 days
期刊介绍: Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain Medicine (formerly Annales Françaises d''Anesthésie et de Réanimation) publishes in English the highest quality original material, both scientific and clinical, on all aspects of anaesthesia, critical care & pain 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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信