自由输血阈值与限制输血阈值的危重患者死亡率:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Daniel Arturo Jiménez Franco, Camilo Andrés Pérez Velásquez, David Rene Rodríguez Lima
{"title":"自由输血阈值与限制输血阈值的危重患者死亡率:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Daniel Arturo Jiménez Franco, Camilo Andrés Pérez Velásquez, David Rene Rodríguez Lima","doi":"10.3390/jcm14062049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Anemia is common in critically ill patients, yet red blood cell (RBC) transfusion without active bleeding does not consistently improve outcomes and carries risks such as pulmonary injury, fluid overload, and increased costs. Optimal transfusion thresholds remain debated, with some guidelines recommending a restrictive target of 7 g/dL instead of a more liberal target of 9 g/dL. <b>Methods</b>: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines, searching PubMed, EMBASE, and LILACS from January 1995 to October 2024. Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 13,705 critically ill adults were included, with 6855 assigned to liberal and 6850 to restrictive transfusion strategies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2, and the pooled effect sizes were estimated with a random-effects model. We registered the protocol in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CDR42024589225). <b>Results</b>: No statistically significant difference was observed in 30-day mortality between restrictive and liberal strategies (odds ratio [OR] 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.25; I<sup>2</sup> = 49%). Similarly, no significant differences emerged for the 90-day or 180-day mortality, hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, dialysis requirement, or incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, patients in the restrictive group received significantly fewer RBC units. The trial sequential analysis (TSA) indicated that the evidence accrued was insufficient to definitively confirm or exclude an effect on the 30-day mortality, as the required sample size was not reached. <b>Conclusions</b>: In conclusion, while our meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference in the short-term mortality between restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies, larger trials are needed to fully determine whether any clinically meaningful difference exists in critically ill populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":15533,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","volume":"14 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11943106/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mortality in Critically Ill Patients with Liberal Versus Restrictive Transfusion Thresholds: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials with Trial Sequential Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Arturo Jiménez Franco, Camilo Andrés Pérez Velásquez, David Rene Rodríguez Lima\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/jcm14062049\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives</b>: Anemia is common in critically ill patients, yet red blood cell (RBC) transfusion without active bleeding does not consistently improve outcomes and carries risks such as pulmonary injury, fluid overload, and increased costs. Optimal transfusion thresholds remain debated, with some guidelines recommending a restrictive target of 7 g/dL instead of a more liberal target of 9 g/dL. <b>Methods</b>: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines, searching PubMed, EMBASE, and LILACS from January 1995 to October 2024. Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 13,705 critically ill adults were included, with 6855 assigned to liberal and 6850 to restrictive transfusion strategies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2, and the pooled effect sizes were estimated with a random-effects model. We registered the protocol in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CDR42024589225). <b>Results</b>: No statistically significant difference was observed in 30-day mortality between restrictive and liberal strategies (odds ratio [OR] 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.25; I<sup>2</sup> = 49%). Similarly, no significant differences emerged for the 90-day or 180-day mortality, hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, dialysis requirement, or incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, patients in the restrictive group received significantly fewer RBC units. The trial sequential analysis (TSA) indicated that the evidence accrued was insufficient to definitively confirm or exclude an effect on the 30-day mortality, as the required sample size was not reached. <b>Conclusions</b>: In conclusion, while our meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference in the short-term mortality between restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies, larger trials are needed to fully determine whether any clinically meaningful difference exists in critically ill populations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15533,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Medicine\",\"volume\":\"14 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11943106/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14062049\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14062049","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:贫血在危重患者中很常见,但无活动性出血的红细胞(RBC)输注并不能持续改善预后,而且存在肺损伤、体液超载和成本增加等风险。最佳输血阈值仍有争议,一些指南建议限制目标为7克/分升,而不是更自由的9克/分升。方法:我们按照PRISMA指南,检索PubMed、EMBASE和LILACS,从1995年1月至2024年10月进行了系统评价和荟萃分析。13项随机对照试验包括13705名危重患者,6855人被分配到自由输血策略,6850人被分配到限制输血策略。使用Cochrane风险偏倚工具2评估偏倚风险,并使用随机效应模型估计合并效应大小。我们在普洛斯普洛国际前瞻性系统评价注册(CDR42024589225)中注册了该方案。结果:限制策略与自由策略的30天死亡率无统计学差异(优势比[OR] 1.02;95%置信区间[CI], 0.83-1.25;I2 = 49%)。同样,90天或180天死亡率、住院或重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间、透析需求或急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)发生率也没有显著差异。然而,限制组患者的RBC单位明显减少。试验序贯分析(TSA)表明,由于没有达到所需的样本量,累积的证据不足以明确证实或排除对30天死亡率的影响。结论:虽然我们的荟萃分析发现限制和自由输血策略在短期死亡率上没有统计学上的显著差异,但需要更大规模的试验来充分确定危重患者群体中是否存在任何临床有意义的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mortality in Critically Ill Patients with Liberal Versus Restrictive Transfusion Thresholds: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials with Trial Sequential Analysis.

Background/Objectives: Anemia is common in critically ill patients, yet red blood cell (RBC) transfusion without active bleeding does not consistently improve outcomes and carries risks such as pulmonary injury, fluid overload, and increased costs. Optimal transfusion thresholds remain debated, with some guidelines recommending a restrictive target of 7 g/dL instead of a more liberal target of 9 g/dL. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines, searching PubMed, EMBASE, and LILACS from January 1995 to October 2024. Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 13,705 critically ill adults were included, with 6855 assigned to liberal and 6850 to restrictive transfusion strategies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2, and the pooled effect sizes were estimated with a random-effects model. We registered the protocol in PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CDR42024589225). Results: No statistically significant difference was observed in 30-day mortality between restrictive and liberal strategies (odds ratio [OR] 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-1.25; I2 = 49%). Similarly, no significant differences emerged for the 90-day or 180-day mortality, hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, dialysis requirement, or incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, patients in the restrictive group received significantly fewer RBC units. The trial sequential analysis (TSA) indicated that the evidence accrued was insufficient to definitively confirm or exclude an effect on the 30-day mortality, as the required sample size was not reached. Conclusions: In conclusion, while our meta-analysis found no statistically significant difference in the short-term mortality between restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies, larger trials are needed to fully determine whether any clinically meaningful difference exists in critically ill populations.

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
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Journal of Clinical Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
6468
审稿时长
16.32 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383), is an international scientific open access journal, providing a platform for advances in health care/clinical practices, the study of direct observation of patients and general medical research. This multi-disciplinary journal is aimed at a wide audience of medical researchers and healthcare professionals. Unique features of this journal: manuscripts regarding original research and ideas will be particularly welcomed.JCM also accepts reviews, communications, and short notes. There is no limit to publication length: our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible.
×
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