自体造血干细胞移植中的单次输血政策:更少并非更糟。

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY
Javier Marco-Ayala , Pedro Asensi Cantó , Marina Suarez , Brais Lamas , Marta Santiago , Inés Gómez , Mario Arnao , Jaime Sanz , Alberto Montava , Miguel Ángel Sanz , Javier de la Rubia , Pilar Solves
{"title":"自体造血干细胞移植中的单次输血政策:更少并非更糟。","authors":"Javier Marco-Ayala ,&nbsp;Pedro Asensi Cantó ,&nbsp;Marina Suarez ,&nbsp;Brais Lamas ,&nbsp;Marta Santiago ,&nbsp;Inés Gómez ,&nbsp;Mario Arnao ,&nbsp;Jaime Sanz ,&nbsp;Alberto Montava ,&nbsp;Miguel Ángel Sanz ,&nbsp;Javier de la Rubia ,&nbsp;Pilar Solves","doi":"10.1016/j.tmrv.2024.150859","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Single-unit red blood cell (1-RBC) transfusion policy has shown to effectively reduce transfusion burden while maintaining comparable clinical outcomes in hematological patients compared to the classical double-unit policy. However, its effects specifically after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) have not been previously studied. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the 1-RBC policy on transfusion burden in a homogeneous cohort of patients undergoing ASCT. We retrospectively compared the transfusion requirements and the clinical outcomes of 187 patients transplanted from May 2019 to December 2022 under a 1-RBC policy, with a historical cohort of 153 patients transplanted from January 2016 to April 2019 under a double-unit policy. The 1-RBC policy was associated with a 32% reduction in RBC utilization and lower number of RBC transfusions at day 30 after transplantation (median 2 versus 3 units; <em>P</em> &lt; .0001), with an odds ratio of 0.49 in multivariate analysis (<em>P</em> = .03). However, the number of transfusion episodes remained similar (median of 2 in both arms; <em>P</em> = .34). No significant differences in length of stay, hemoglobin levels at discharge or 30‐day mortality were observed. In conclusion, transitioning to the 1-RBC represents a straightforward action in current practice that significantly reduces blood transfusions in patients undergoing ASCT, without negatively impacting clinical outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56081,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion Medicine Reviews","volume":"38 4","pages":"Article 150859"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Single-Unit Transfusion Policy in Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Less is Not Worse\",\"authors\":\"Javier Marco-Ayala ,&nbsp;Pedro Asensi Cantó ,&nbsp;Marina Suarez ,&nbsp;Brais Lamas ,&nbsp;Marta Santiago ,&nbsp;Inés Gómez ,&nbsp;Mario Arnao ,&nbsp;Jaime Sanz ,&nbsp;Alberto Montava ,&nbsp;Miguel Ángel Sanz ,&nbsp;Javier de la Rubia ,&nbsp;Pilar Solves\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tmrv.2024.150859\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Single-unit red blood cell (1-RBC) transfusion policy has shown to effectively reduce transfusion burden while maintaining comparable clinical outcomes in hematological patients compared to the classical double-unit policy. However, its effects specifically after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) have not been previously studied. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the 1-RBC policy on transfusion burden in a homogeneous cohort of patients undergoing ASCT. We retrospectively compared the transfusion requirements and the clinical outcomes of 187 patients transplanted from May 2019 to December 2022 under a 1-RBC policy, with a historical cohort of 153 patients transplanted from January 2016 to April 2019 under a double-unit policy. The 1-RBC policy was associated with a 32% reduction in RBC utilization and lower number of RBC transfusions at day 30 after transplantation (median 2 versus 3 units; <em>P</em> &lt; .0001), with an odds ratio of 0.49 in multivariate analysis (<em>P</em> = .03). However, the number of transfusion episodes remained similar (median of 2 in both arms; <em>P</em> = .34). No significant differences in length of stay, hemoglobin levels at discharge or 30‐day mortality were observed. In conclusion, transitioning to the 1-RBC represents a straightforward action in current practice that significantly reduces blood transfusions in patients undergoing ASCT, without negatively impacting clinical outcomes.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56081,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transfusion Medicine Reviews\",\"volume\":\"38 4\",\"pages\":\"Article 150859\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transfusion Medicine Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088779632400049X\",\"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/S088779632400049X","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: 0

摘要

与传统的双单位输血政策相比,单单位红细胞(1-RBC)输血政策已被证明可有效减轻血液病患者的输血负担,同时保持相当的临床疗效。然而,针对自体干细胞移植(ASCT)后单单位红细胞输血政策的效果,此前尚未进行过研究。我们的目的是评估1-RBC政策对接受ASCT的同类患者输血负担的影响。我们回顾性比较了在 1-RBC 政策下于 2019 年 5 月至 2022 年 12 月接受移植的 187 例患者的输血需求和临床结果,以及在双单位政策下于 2016 年 1 月至 2019 年 4 月接受移植的 153 例患者的历史队列。1-RBC政策与RBC使用率降低32%和移植后第30天RBC输血次数减少(中位数为2单位对3单位;P < .0001)相关,多变量分析中的几率比为0.49(P = .03)。然而,输血次数仍然相似(两组的中位数均为 2;P = .34)。在住院时间、出院时血红蛋白水平或 30 天死亡率方面没有观察到明显差异。总之,过渡到 1-RBC 代表了当前实践中的一项直接措施,可显著减少接受 ASCT 患者的输血量,而不会对临床结果产生负面影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Single-Unit Transfusion Policy in Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Less is Not Worse
Single-unit red blood cell (1-RBC) transfusion policy has shown to effectively reduce transfusion burden while maintaining comparable clinical outcomes in hematological patients compared to the classical double-unit policy. However, its effects specifically after autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) have not been previously studied. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the 1-RBC policy on transfusion burden in a homogeneous cohort of patients undergoing ASCT. We retrospectively compared the transfusion requirements and the clinical outcomes of 187 patients transplanted from May 2019 to December 2022 under a 1-RBC policy, with a historical cohort of 153 patients transplanted from January 2016 to April 2019 under a double-unit policy. The 1-RBC policy was associated with a 32% reduction in RBC utilization and lower number of RBC transfusions at day 30 after transplantation (median 2 versus 3 units; P < .0001), with an odds ratio of 0.49 in multivariate analysis (P = .03). However, the number of transfusion episodes remained similar (median of 2 in both arms; P = .34). No significant differences in length of stay, hemoglobin levels at discharge or 30‐day mortality were observed. In conclusion, transitioning to the 1-RBC represents a straightforward action in current practice that significantly reduces blood transfusions in patients undergoing ASCT, without negatively impacting clinical outcomes.
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.
×
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