Restrictive vs. Liberal Transfusion Strategy in Critically Ill Patients with Acute Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 3.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Amanda Boutrik, Udenilson Nunes da Silva Junior, Matheus de Medeiros Fernandes, Luís Otávio Nogueira, Douglas Dias E Silva, Dayany Leonel Boone
{"title":"Restrictive vs. Liberal Transfusion Strategy in Critically Ill Patients with Acute Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Amanda Boutrik, Udenilson Nunes da Silva Junior, Matheus de Medeiros Fernandes, Luís Otávio Nogueira, Douglas Dias E Silva, Dayany Leonel Boone","doi":"10.1007/s12028-025-02364-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The indications of red blood cell transfusions in the absence of life-threatening bleeding in neurocritical individuals are controversial. Recently, three large randomized controlled trials assessed transfusion strategies in this population, allowing an update of a previous meta-analysis, including a sample seven times bigger than the one analyzed previously. We performed a systematic review and updated meta-analysis of liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategy in patients with acute brain injury, comprising traumatic brain injury (TBI), intracerebral hemorrhage, and subarachnoid hemorrhage. A review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024616143). We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials comparing liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategy in neurocritical patients. We used Review Manager 5.4 to apply a random-effects model to pool risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), as available in the individual studies. Quality assessment was performed through the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool (RoB 2.0 tool). Six randomized clinical trials were included, comprising 2,497 patients, of whom 1,431 presented with TBI. The liberal transfusion strategy led to statistically significant lower rates of unfavorable neurological outcomes compared to the restrictive strategy (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.83-0.96; p = 0.002; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Although a trend favoring the liberal strategy was observed in most mortality and length of stay outcomes, the pooled analysis did not identify statistically significant differences between the two groups. TBI subgroup analysis led to similar results when compared to the general pooled analysis. The main study limitations include the limited number of studies, the imbalance in study weights within the analyses, and the presence of significant heterogeneity. In conclusion, our results suggest that a liberal transfusion strategy may be beneficial to neurocritical patients in terms of neurological outcome when compared to the restrictive strategy, although our results should be interpreted with caution. Further investigation is needed to provide support for updating guidelines for neurocritical care.</p>","PeriodicalId":19118,"journal":{"name":"Neurocritical Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurocritical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-025-02364-4","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The indications of red blood cell transfusions in the absence of life-threatening bleeding in neurocritical individuals are controversial. Recently, three large randomized controlled trials assessed transfusion strategies in this population, allowing an update of a previous meta-analysis, including a sample seven times bigger than the one analyzed previously. We performed a systematic review and updated meta-analysis of liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategy in patients with acute brain injury, comprising traumatic brain injury (TBI), intracerebral hemorrhage, and subarachnoid hemorrhage. A review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024616143). We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials comparing liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategy in neurocritical patients. We used Review Manager 5.4 to apply a random-effects model to pool risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), as available in the individual studies. Quality assessment was performed through the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool (RoB 2.0 tool). Six randomized clinical trials were included, comprising 2,497 patients, of whom 1,431 presented with TBI. The liberal transfusion strategy led to statistically significant lower rates of unfavorable neurological outcomes compared to the restrictive strategy (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.83-0.96; p = 0.002; I2 = 0%). Although a trend favoring the liberal strategy was observed in most mortality and length of stay outcomes, the pooled analysis did not identify statistically significant differences between the two groups. TBI subgroup analysis led to similar results when compared to the general pooled analysis. The main study limitations include the limited number of studies, the imbalance in study weights within the analyses, and the presence of significant heterogeneity. In conclusion, our results suggest that a liberal transfusion strategy may be beneficial to neurocritical patients in terms of neurological outcome when compared to the restrictive strategy, although our results should be interpreted with caution. Further investigation is needed to provide support for updating guidelines for neurocritical care.

限制与自由输血策略在重症急性脑损伤患者:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
在没有危及生命的出血的神经危重症患者中,红细胞输注的适应症是有争议的。最近,三个大型随机对照试验评估了这一人群的输血策略,允许对先前的荟萃分析进行更新,包括比先前分析的样本大7倍的样本。我们对急性脑损伤(包括创伤性脑损伤(TBI)、脑出血和蛛网膜下腔出血)患者的自由输血与限制性输血策略进行了系统回顾和更新的荟萃分析。审查方案已在PROSPERO (CRD42024616143)上注册。我们系统地检索了PubMed、Embase和Cochrane中央对照试验注册库,以比较神经危重症患者自由输血与限制性输血策略的随机对照试验。我们使用Review Manager 5.4将随机效应模型应用于单个研究中可用的汇总风险比(rr)和95%置信区间(ci)。通过Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具(RoB 2.0工具)进行质量评估。纳入6项随机临床试验,包括2,497例患者,其中1,431例表现为TBI。与限制性输注策略相比,自由输注策略导致不良神经预后的发生率有统计学意义上的降低(RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.83-0.96; p = 0.002; I2 = 0%)。虽然在大多数死亡率和住院时间结果中观察到倾向于自由策略的趋势,但合并分析并没有确定两组之间的统计学显著差异。与一般合并分析相比,TBI亚组分析得出了相似的结果。研究的主要局限性包括研究数量有限,分析中研究权重的不平衡,以及存在显著的异质性。总之,我们的研究结果表明,与限制性策略相比,自由输血策略可能对神经危重症患者的神经预后有益,尽管我们的结果应该谨慎解释。需要进一步的研究为更新神经危重症护理指南提供支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neurocritical Care
Neurocritical Care 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
8.60%
发文量
221
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurocritical Care is a peer reviewed scientific publication whose major goal is to disseminate new knowledge on all aspects of acute neurological care. It is directed towards neurosurgeons, neuro-intensivists, neurologists, anesthesiologists, emergency physicians, and critical care nurses treating patients with urgent neurologic disorders. These are conditions that may potentially evolve rapidly and could need immediate medical or surgical intervention. Neurocritical Care provides a comprehensive overview of current developments in intensive care neurology, neurosurgery and neuroanesthesia and includes information about new therapeutic avenues and technological innovations. Neurocritical Care is the official journal of the Neurocritical Care Society.
×
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