We have located links that may give you full text access.
Restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (trigger): pragmatic, cluster randomised, feasibility trial.
Emergency Medicine Journal : EMJ 2014 September
OBJECTIVES & BACKGROUND: Transfusion thresholds for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) are controversial. Observational studies suggest associations between liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion and adverse outcome. A recent trial reported increased mortality following liberal transfusion. We delivered a cluster randomised trial to evaluate the feasibility and safety of implementing a restrictive (transfusion when haemoglobin (Hb) <8 g dL) vs liberal (transfusion when Hb <10 g/dL) RBC transfusion policy for UGIB.
METHODS: Hospitals were randomised to a policy which was implemented through a multi-faceted educational intervention. Patients were recruited in Emergency Departments and acute admission units. All adult patients were eligible to participate, regardless of co-morbidity; the only exclusion criterion was exsanguinating haemorrhage. Feasibility and exploratory clinical outcomes were recorded up to day 28.
RESULTS: 936 patients were enrolled in six hospitals. Rockall and Blatchford risk scores were identical between policies. Protocol adherence was 96% in the restrictive policy vs 83% in the liberal policy (difference 14%, 95% CI 7 to 21%). In patients with Hb <120 g/L, Hb at discharge was lower for the restrictive policy (difference -0.7; 95% CI -1.4 to 0.0; p=0.05). For the restrictive policy fewer patients received RBCs (difference -13%, 95% CI -35 to 11%) with on average 0.8 (-1.9 to 0.3) fewer RBC units transfused. Clinical outcomes were better in the restrictive policy: 28-day further bleeding, 5% restrictive vs 9% liberal (difference -3.7%, 95% CI -12.2 to 4.8%); 28-day mortality, 5% restrictive vs 7% liberal (difference -1.3%, 95% CI -8.0 to 5.5%).; serious adverse events, 18% restrictive vs 22% liberal (difference -4.9%, 95% CI -22.6 to 12.8%). In the subgroup with IHD, there was a large observed difference for mortality (12% restrictive arm (n=6) vs. 3% liberal arm (n=2); interaction P=0.11).
CONCLUSION: Adherence to both policies was high, resulting in a reduction in RBC transfusion and separation in the degree of anaemia and RBC exposure. There was a trend towards improved safety in the restrictive policy. We have demonstrated that a large-scale cluster randomised trial is feasible and is now warranted to determine the effectiveness of implementing restrictive RBC transfusion for all patients with AUGIB.
METHODS: Hospitals were randomised to a policy which was implemented through a multi-faceted educational intervention. Patients were recruited in Emergency Departments and acute admission units. All adult patients were eligible to participate, regardless of co-morbidity; the only exclusion criterion was exsanguinating haemorrhage. Feasibility and exploratory clinical outcomes were recorded up to day 28.
RESULTS: 936 patients were enrolled in six hospitals. Rockall and Blatchford risk scores were identical between policies. Protocol adherence was 96% in the restrictive policy vs 83% in the liberal policy (difference 14%, 95% CI 7 to 21%). In patients with Hb <120 g/L, Hb at discharge was lower for the restrictive policy (difference -0.7; 95% CI -1.4 to 0.0; p=0.05). For the restrictive policy fewer patients received RBCs (difference -13%, 95% CI -35 to 11%) with on average 0.8 (-1.9 to 0.3) fewer RBC units transfused. Clinical outcomes were better in the restrictive policy: 28-day further bleeding, 5% restrictive vs 9% liberal (difference -3.7%, 95% CI -12.2 to 4.8%); 28-day mortality, 5% restrictive vs 7% liberal (difference -1.3%, 95% CI -8.0 to 5.5%).; serious adverse events, 18% restrictive vs 22% liberal (difference -4.9%, 95% CI -22.6 to 12.8%). In the subgroup with IHD, there was a large observed difference for mortality (12% restrictive arm (n=6) vs. 3% liberal arm (n=2); interaction P=0.11).
CONCLUSION: Adherence to both policies was high, resulting in a reduction in RBC transfusion and separation in the degree of anaemia and RBC exposure. There was a trend towards improved safety in the restrictive policy. We have demonstrated that a large-scale cluster randomised trial is feasible and is now warranted to determine the effectiveness of implementing restrictive RBC transfusion for all patients with AUGIB.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Contrast-induced acute kidney injury: a review of definition, pathogenesis, risk factors, prevention and treatment.BMC Nephrology 2024 April 23
Hemodynamic Support in Sepsis.Anesthesiology 2024 June 2
The New Challenge of Obesity - Obesity-Associated Nephropathy.Diabetes, Metabolic Syndrome and Obesity 2024
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app