重症监护病房红细胞输注后氧提取率变化的评估:一项前瞻性观察性非介入性研究。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY
Transfusion Pub Date : 2025-03-25 DOI:10.1111/trf.18164
Ahmet Salih Tüzen, Murat Aksun, Atilla Şencan, Senem Girgin, Birzat Emre Gölboyu, Gizem Kırbaş, Ozan Şanlı
{"title":"重症监护病房红细胞输注后氧提取率变化的评估:一项前瞻性观察性非介入性研究。","authors":"Ahmet Salih Tüzen, Murat Aksun, Atilla Şencan, Senem Girgin, Birzat Emre Gölboyu, Gizem Kırbaş, Ozan Şanlı","doi":"10.1111/trf.18164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The decision-making process for red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) remains primarily guided by hemoglobin-based thresholds. However, as a component of personalized medicine, innovative and individualized criteria should be developed to optimize RBCT decisions. This study aims to assess the impact of RBCTs on oxygenation parameters and patient outcomes, with a specific focus on the oxygen extraction ratio (O<sub>2</sub>ER).</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>This prospective observational study included 77 critically ill patients receiving RBCTs according to ICU transfusion protocols. The primary hypothesis is that patients with an O<sub>2</sub>ER > 0.30 will benefit most from RBCTs. To investigate this, patients receiving RBCTs were divided into two groups: those with O<sub>2</sub>ER > 0.30 (RBCTs appropriate) and those with O<sub>2</sub>ER ≤ 0.30 (RBCTs appropriateness questionable). The two groups were compared in terms of primarily O<sub>2</sub>ER, other oxygenation parameters, and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the change in O<sub>2</sub>ER following RBCTs, while secondary outcomes encompassed other oxygenation parameter changes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The O<sub>2</sub>ER > 0.30 group showed significant improvement in O<sub>2</sub>ER (0.38 ± 0.04 vs. 0.32 ± 0.05; p < .001), whereas no such improvement was observed in the O<sub>2</sub>ER ≤ 0.30 group (0.26 ± 0.03 vs. 0.28 ± 0.05; p: .017). Additionally, the O<sub>2</sub>ER > 0.30 group exhibited improvements in central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO<sub>2</sub>) following RBCTs, which were not seen in the O<sub>2</sub>ER ≤ 0.30 group.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our study reveals promising insights into the impact of RBCTs on O<sub>2</sub>ER; however, these physiological changes did not result in significant clinical improvements. Hence, this study provides a rational basis for the feasibility of implementing a personalized strategy focused on physiological triggers for RBCTs.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT05798130 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05798130).</p>","PeriodicalId":23266,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of oxygen extraction rate changes following red blood cell transfusion in the intensive care unit: A prospective observational noninterventional study.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmet Salih Tüzen, Murat Aksun, Atilla Şencan, Senem Girgin, Birzat Emre Gölboyu, Gizem Kırbaş, Ozan Şanlı\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/trf.18164\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The decision-making process for red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) remains primarily guided by hemoglobin-based thresholds. However, as a component of personalized medicine, innovative and individualized criteria should be developed to optimize RBCT decisions. This study aims to assess the impact of RBCTs on oxygenation parameters and patient outcomes, with a specific focus on the oxygen extraction ratio (O<sub>2</sub>ER).</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>This prospective observational study included 77 critically ill patients receiving RBCTs according to ICU transfusion protocols. The primary hypothesis is that patients with an O<sub>2</sub>ER > 0.30 will benefit most from RBCTs. To investigate this, patients receiving RBCTs were divided into two groups: those with O<sub>2</sub>ER > 0.30 (RBCTs appropriate) and those with O<sub>2</sub>ER ≤ 0.30 (RBCTs appropriateness questionable). The two groups were compared in terms of primarily O<sub>2</sub>ER, other oxygenation parameters, and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the change in O<sub>2</sub>ER following RBCTs, while secondary outcomes encompassed other oxygenation parameter changes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The O<sub>2</sub>ER > 0.30 group showed significant improvement in O<sub>2</sub>ER (0.38 ± 0.04 vs. 0.32 ± 0.05; p < .001), whereas no such improvement was observed in the O<sub>2</sub>ER ≤ 0.30 group (0.26 ± 0.03 vs. 0.28 ± 0.05; p: .017). Additionally, the O<sub>2</sub>ER > 0.30 group exhibited improvements in central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO<sub>2</sub>) following RBCTs, which were not seen in the O<sub>2</sub>ER ≤ 0.30 group.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our study reveals promising insights into the impact of RBCTs on O<sub>2</sub>ER; however, these physiological changes did not result in significant clinical improvements. Hence, this study provides a rational basis for the feasibility of implementing a personalized strategy focused on physiological triggers for RBCTs.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>NCT05798130 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05798130).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transfusion\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transfusion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.18164\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.18164","RegionNum":3,"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

背景:重症监护病房(ICU)危重患者红细胞输血(RBCT)的决策过程仍然主要以血红蛋白阈值为指导。然而,作为个性化医疗的一个组成部分,应该制定创新和个性化的标准来优化RBCT决策。本研究旨在评估rbct对氧合参数和患者预后的影响,特别关注氧提取比(O2ER)。研究设计和方法:本前瞻性观察性研究纳入了77例根据ICU输血方案接受rbct治疗的危重患者。主要假设是O2ER >.30的患者将从随机对照试验中获益最多。为了研究这一点,接受rbts的患者被分为两组:O2ER≤0.30 (rbts适宜)和O2ER≤0.30 (rbts适宜性可疑)。比较两组患者的主要O2ER、其他氧合参数和临床结果。主要终点是rbct后O2ER的变化,而次要终点包括其他氧合参数的变化。结果:O2ER > 0.30组O2ER明显改善(0.38±0.04∶0.32±0.05;p≤0.30组(0.26±0.03∶0.28±0.05);p: .017)。此外,O2ER≤0.30组在rbtc后中心静脉氧饱和度(ScvO2)有所改善,而在O2ER≤0.30组中没有出现这种情况。讨论:我们的研究揭示了rbts对O2ER的影响的有希望的见解;然而,这些生理变化并没有导致显著的临床改善。因此,本研究为在随机对照试验中实施以生理触发为重点的个性化策略的可行性提供了合理的依据。试验注册号:NCT05798130 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05798130)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of oxygen extraction rate changes following red blood cell transfusion in the intensive care unit: A prospective observational noninterventional study.

Background: The decision-making process for red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) remains primarily guided by hemoglobin-based thresholds. However, as a component of personalized medicine, innovative and individualized criteria should be developed to optimize RBCT decisions. This study aims to assess the impact of RBCTs on oxygenation parameters and patient outcomes, with a specific focus on the oxygen extraction ratio (O2ER).

Study design and methods: This prospective observational study included 77 critically ill patients receiving RBCTs according to ICU transfusion protocols. The primary hypothesis is that patients with an O2ER > 0.30 will benefit most from RBCTs. To investigate this, patients receiving RBCTs were divided into two groups: those with O2ER > 0.30 (RBCTs appropriate) and those with O2ER ≤ 0.30 (RBCTs appropriateness questionable). The two groups were compared in terms of primarily O2ER, other oxygenation parameters, and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the change in O2ER following RBCTs, while secondary outcomes encompassed other oxygenation parameter changes.

Results: The O2ER > 0.30 group showed significant improvement in O2ER (0.38 ± 0.04 vs. 0.32 ± 0.05; p < .001), whereas no such improvement was observed in the O2ER ≤ 0.30 group (0.26 ± 0.03 vs. 0.28 ± 0.05; p: .017). Additionally, the O2ER > 0.30 group exhibited improvements in central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) following RBCTs, which were not seen in the O2ER ≤ 0.30 group.

Discussion: Our study reveals promising insights into the impact of RBCTs on O2ER; however, these physiological changes did not result in significant clinical improvements. Hence, this study provides a rational basis for the feasibility of implementing a personalized strategy focused on physiological triggers for RBCTs.

Trial registration number: NCT05798130 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05798130).

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
Transfusion 医学-血液学
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
20.70%
发文量
426
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: TRANSFUSION is the foremost publication in the world for new information regarding transfusion medicine. Written by and for members of AABB and other health-care workers, TRANSFUSION reports on the latest technical advances, discusses opposing viewpoints regarding controversial issues, and presents key conference proceedings. In addition to blood banking and transfusion medicine topics, TRANSFUSION presents submissions concerning patient blood management, tissue transplantation and hematopoietic, cellular, and gene therapies.
×
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