Indications for red blood cell transfusion in cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Good blood management is an important determinant of outcome in cardiac surgery. Guidelines recommend restrictive red blood cell transfusion. Our objective was to systematically review the evidence from randomised controlled trials and observational studies that are used to inform transfusion decisi...
Saved in:
| Published in: | The Lancet. Haematology Vol. 2; no. 12; p. e543 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
England
01.12.2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| ISSN: | 2352-3026, 2352-3026 |
| Online Access: | Get more information |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Abstract | Good blood management is an important determinant of outcome in cardiac surgery. Guidelines recommend restrictive red blood cell transfusion. Our objective was to systematically review the evidence from randomised controlled trials and observational studies that are used to inform transfusion decisions in adult cardiac surgery.
We did a systematic review by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and DARE, from inception to May 1, 2015, databases from specialist societies, and bibliographies of included studies and recent relevant review articles. We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of liberal versus restrictive red blood cell transfusion in patients undergoing cardiac and non-cardiac surgery, and observational studies that assessed the effect of red blood cell transfusion compared with no transfusion on outcomes in adult cardiac patients after surgery. We pooled adjusted odds ratios using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.
We included data from six cardiac surgical randomised controlled trials (3352 patients), 19 non-cardiac surgical trials (8361 patients), and 39 observational studies (232,806 patients). The pooled fixed effects mortality odds ratios comparing liberal versus restrictive transfusion thresholds was 0.70 (95% CI 0.49-1.02; p=0.060) for cardiac surgical trials and 1.10 (95% CI 0.96-1.27; p=0.16) for trials in settings other than cardiac surgery. By contrast, observational cohort studies in cardiac surgery showed that red blood cell transfusion compared with no transfusion was associated with substantially higher mortality (random effects odds ratio 2.72, 95% CI 2.11-3.49; p<0.0001) and other morbidity, although with substantial heterogeneity and small study effects.
Evidence from randomised controlled trials in cardiac surgery refutes findings from observational studies that liberal thresholds for red blood cell transfusion are associated with a substantially increased risk of mortality and morbidity. Observational studies and trials in non-cardiac surgery should not be used to inform treatment decisions or guidelines for patients having cardiac surgery.
None. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Good blood management is an important determinant of outcome in cardiac surgery. Guidelines recommend restrictive red blood cell transfusion. Our objective was to systematically review the evidence from randomised controlled trials and observational studies that are used to inform transfusion decisions in adult cardiac surgery.
We did a systematic review by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and DARE, from inception to May 1, 2015, databases from specialist societies, and bibliographies of included studies and recent relevant review articles. We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of liberal versus restrictive red blood cell transfusion in patients undergoing cardiac and non-cardiac surgery, and observational studies that assessed the effect of red blood cell transfusion compared with no transfusion on outcomes in adult cardiac patients after surgery. We pooled adjusted odds ratios using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.
We included data from six cardiac surgical randomised controlled trials (3352 patients), 19 non-cardiac surgical trials (8361 patients), and 39 observational studies (232,806 patients). The pooled fixed effects mortality odds ratios comparing liberal versus restrictive transfusion thresholds was 0.70 (95% CI 0.49-1.02; p=0.060) for cardiac surgical trials and 1.10 (95% CI 0.96-1.27; p=0.16) for trials in settings other than cardiac surgery. By contrast, observational cohort studies in cardiac surgery showed that red blood cell transfusion compared with no transfusion was associated with substantially higher mortality (random effects odds ratio 2.72, 95% CI 2.11-3.49; p<0.0001) and other morbidity, although with substantial heterogeneity and small study effects.
Evidence from randomised controlled trials in cardiac surgery refutes findings from observational studies that liberal thresholds for red blood cell transfusion are associated with a substantially increased risk of mortality and morbidity. Observational studies and trials in non-cardiac surgery should not be used to inform treatment decisions or guidelines for patients having cardiac surgery.
None. Good blood management is an important determinant of outcome in cardiac surgery. Guidelines recommend restrictive red blood cell transfusion. Our objective was to systematically review the evidence from randomised controlled trials and observational studies that are used to inform transfusion decisions in adult cardiac surgery.BACKGROUNDGood blood management is an important determinant of outcome in cardiac surgery. Guidelines recommend restrictive red blood cell transfusion. Our objective was to systematically review the evidence from randomised controlled trials and observational studies that are used to inform transfusion decisions in adult cardiac surgery.We did a systematic review by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and DARE, from inception to May 1, 2015, databases from specialist societies, and bibliographies of included studies and recent relevant review articles. We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of liberal versus restrictive red blood cell transfusion in patients undergoing cardiac and non-cardiac surgery, and observational studies that assessed the effect of red blood cell transfusion compared with no transfusion on outcomes in adult cardiac patients after surgery. We pooled adjusted odds ratios using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.METHODSWe did a systematic review by searching PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and DARE, from inception to May 1, 2015, databases from specialist societies, and bibliographies of included studies and recent relevant review articles. We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of liberal versus restrictive red blood cell transfusion in patients undergoing cardiac and non-cardiac surgery, and observational studies that assessed the effect of red blood cell transfusion compared with no transfusion on outcomes in adult cardiac patients after surgery. We pooled adjusted odds ratios using fixed-effects and random-effects meta-analyses. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality.We included data from six cardiac surgical randomised controlled trials (3352 patients), 19 non-cardiac surgical trials (8361 patients), and 39 observational studies (232,806 patients). The pooled fixed effects mortality odds ratios comparing liberal versus restrictive transfusion thresholds was 0.70 (95% CI 0.49-1.02; p=0.060) for cardiac surgical trials and 1.10 (95% CI 0.96-1.27; p=0.16) for trials in settings other than cardiac surgery. By contrast, observational cohort studies in cardiac surgery showed that red blood cell transfusion compared with no transfusion was associated with substantially higher mortality (random effects odds ratio 2.72, 95% CI 2.11-3.49; p<0.0001) and other morbidity, although with substantial heterogeneity and small study effects.FINDINGSWe included data from six cardiac surgical randomised controlled trials (3352 patients), 19 non-cardiac surgical trials (8361 patients), and 39 observational studies (232,806 patients). The pooled fixed effects mortality odds ratios comparing liberal versus restrictive transfusion thresholds was 0.70 (95% CI 0.49-1.02; p=0.060) for cardiac surgical trials and 1.10 (95% CI 0.96-1.27; p=0.16) for trials in settings other than cardiac surgery. By contrast, observational cohort studies in cardiac surgery showed that red blood cell transfusion compared with no transfusion was associated with substantially higher mortality (random effects odds ratio 2.72, 95% CI 2.11-3.49; p<0.0001) and other morbidity, although with substantial heterogeneity and small study effects.Evidence from randomised controlled trials in cardiac surgery refutes findings from observational studies that liberal thresholds for red blood cell transfusion are associated with a substantially increased risk of mortality and morbidity. Observational studies and trials in non-cardiac surgery should not be used to inform treatment decisions or guidelines for patients having cardiac surgery.INTERPRETATIONEvidence from randomised controlled trials in cardiac surgery refutes findings from observational studies that liberal thresholds for red blood cell transfusion are associated with a substantially increased risk of mortality and morbidity. Observational studies and trials in non-cardiac surgery should not be used to inform treatment decisions or guidelines for patients having cardiac surgery.None.FUNDINGNone. |
| Author | Jones, Hayley E Patel, Nishith N Murphy, Gavin J Reeves, Barnaby C Sterne, Jonathan A C Avlonitis, Vassilios S |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Nishith N surname: Patel fullname: Patel, Nishith N organization: National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK – sequence: 2 givenname: Vassilios S surname: Avlonitis fullname: Avlonitis, Vassilios S organization: Department of Cardiac Surgery, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK – sequence: 3 givenname: Hayley E surname: Jones fullname: Jones, Hayley E organization: School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK – sequence: 4 givenname: Barnaby C surname: Reeves fullname: Reeves, Barnaby C organization: Clinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK – sequence: 5 givenname: Jonathan A C surname: Sterne fullname: Sterne, Jonathan A C organization: School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK – sequence: 6 givenname: Gavin J surname: Murphy fullname: Murphy, Gavin J email: gjm19@le.ac.uk organization: Leicester Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit & Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Leicester, Glenfield General Hospital, Leicester, UK. Electronic address: gjm19@le.ac.uk |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26686409$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNpNkFtLxDAQhYOsuLruT1DyuD5Uk7S51DdZvCws-KA-l2kuEmnTNWmV_nsrruLDcIaZ7xyYOUGz0AWL0Bkll5RQcfXEcs6ynDCxovyCEFqqjB2g47_x7F8_R8uU3shE5VJwUR6hORNCiYKUx8hsgvEaet-FhF0XcbQG103XGaxt0-A-QkhuSNMe-4A1RONB4zTEVxvHaww4jam37ZSgJ--Ht58YgsGt7SGDAM2YfDpFhw6aZJd7XaCXu9vn9UO2fbzfrG-2meZK9llhCIFcaCCF1TUruStAOlUbxV2ppTNcOudqYXOhgEsCZWGVKYQymrucSbZAq5_cXezeB5v6qvXp-wwIthtSRSWntJyqmNDzPTrUrTXVLvoW4lj9foZ9AQuGanI |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bja_2020_08_039 crossref_primary_10_1111_trf_14418 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2016_011311 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jtcvs_2016_03_054 crossref_primary_10_1053_j_jvca_2017_02_009 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12871_024_02447_3 crossref_primary_10_1093_eurheartj_ehy435 crossref_primary_10_1111_anae_14636 crossref_primary_10_1093_ejcts_ezx325 crossref_primary_10_1053_j_jvca_2022_11_029 crossref_primary_10_1093_icvts_ivae170 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_tmrv_2017_06_001 crossref_primary_10_1111_trf_16075 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00398_025_00726_w crossref_primary_10_1007_s12630_018_1150_y crossref_primary_10_1111_aas_14004 crossref_primary_10_1093_ejcts_ezae352 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41372_021_00997_9 crossref_primary_10_1111_jocs_14573 crossref_primary_10_2147_TCRM_S388924 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2020_041398 crossref_primary_10_1177_0267659117723698 crossref_primary_10_26442_20751753_2025_1_203186 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_athoracsur_2023_12_012 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13054_017_1638_9 crossref_primary_10_1056_NEJMoa1711818 crossref_primary_10_1111_trf_17714 crossref_primary_10_1161_CIRCULATIONAHA_117_029036 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12872_024_04151_z crossref_primary_10_1016_j_athoracsur_2021_07_069 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_medine_2018_01_014 crossref_primary_10_1053_j_jvca_2024_01_029 crossref_primary_10_1097_CCM_0000000000002873 crossref_primary_10_1093_bja_aew239 crossref_primary_10_1002_ehf2_12489 crossref_primary_10_12688_f1000research_10085_1 crossref_primary_10_3390_jcdd9110365 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_tacc_2016_06_007 crossref_primary_10_1053_j_jvca_2022_03_017 crossref_primary_10_1111_tme_12535 crossref_primary_10_1111_trf_14561 crossref_primary_10_1136_openhrt_2015_000344 crossref_primary_10_1053_j_jvca_2016_06_029 crossref_primary_10_1016_S2352_3026_15_00221_5 crossref_primary_10_1053_j_jvca_2017_11_043 crossref_primary_10_1111_trf_17150 crossref_primary_10_1053_j_jvca_2024_10_006 crossref_primary_10_1097_MCA_0000000000001349 crossref_primary_10_1111_vox_12666 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12288_018_1039_5 crossref_primary_10_1017_S1047951119002385 crossref_primary_10_1213_ANE_0000000000002581 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_medin_2018_01_014 crossref_primary_10_1213_ANE_0000000000006065 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12630_020_01763_9 crossref_primary_10_1111_vox_13274 crossref_primary_10_1177_1089253219842651 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12916_020_01614_w crossref_primary_10_1097_TXD_0000000000001179 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_athoracsur_2019_06_059 crossref_primary_10_1002_clc_23453 crossref_primary_10_1053_j_jvca_2023_01_038 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00398_016_0116_z crossref_primary_10_1016_j_transci_2019_06_015 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_accpm_2022_101059 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2021_054193 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11239_018_1784_1 crossref_primary_10_1177_0267659117712405 crossref_primary_10_1213_ANE_0000000000002549 crossref_primary_10_1111_aas_13677 crossref_primary_10_1161_CIRCULATIONAHA_116_022840 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_022_01787_3 crossref_primary_10_1586_17474086_2016_1164593 crossref_primary_10_1002_14651858_CD009752_pub3 crossref_primary_10_1053_j_jvca_2018_05_051 crossref_primary_10_3310_hta20600 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12871_016_0264_4 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bjao_2022_100032 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2019_029828 crossref_primary_10_1097_ALN_0000000000001161 crossref_primary_10_1097_MD_0000000000014884 crossref_primary_10_1177_02676591241239838 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13054_018_2062_5 crossref_primary_10_1097_CM9_0000000000002584 crossref_primary_10_1111_tme_12475 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13019_023_02175_8 crossref_primary_10_1017_S1047951118001154 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_accpm_2021_100854 crossref_primary_10_1053_j_jvca_2017_06_026 crossref_primary_10_5633_amm_2019_0110 crossref_primary_10_1093_bja_aex100 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12630_018_1217_9 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. |
| DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00198-2 |
| DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 2352-3026 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 26686409 |
| Genre | Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review Journal Article |
| GrantInformation | None. |
| GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: British Heart Foundation grantid: CH/12/1/29419 – fundername: British Heart Foundation grantid: PG11/95/29173 – fundername: Medical Research Council grantid: MR/K025643/1 – fundername: Department of Health grantid: RP-PG-0407-10384 – fundername: Medical Research Council grantid: MR/M014533/1 |
| GroupedDBID | -RU .1- .FO 0R~ 1P~ 4.4 457 53G AAEDT AAEDW AALRI AAMRU AAQFI AAQQT AAXUO ABJNI ACGFS ADBBV AENEX AFRHN AFTJW AGCQF AITUG AJUYK ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMRAJ APXCP CGR CUY CVF EBS ECM EFKBS EIF EJD FDB HZ~ M41 NPM O9- OC~ OO- Z5R 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c587t-4d00a36ca04ecb295f4a7f8bd85f9c7fd57fffb6e368a570a94e8d468dc5f3272 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 101 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000366033900013&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 2352-3026 |
| IngestDate | Sun Nov 09 12:02:55 EST 2025 Sun Jul 13 01:32:29 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 12 |
| Language | English |
| License | Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c587t-4d00a36ca04ecb295f4a7f8bd85f9c7fd57fffb6e368a570a94e8d468dc5f3272 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 ObjectType-Review-3 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-4 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/publications/0d961292-44d5-4ed4-b67b-68ff375fc373 |
| PMID | 26686409 |
| PQID | 1751195114 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_1751195114 pubmed_primary_26686409 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2015-12-01 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2015-12-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 12 year: 2015 text: 2015-12-01 day: 01 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | England |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England |
| PublicationTitle | The Lancet. Haematology |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Lancet Haematol |
| PublicationYear | 2015 |
| References | 26686403 - Lancet Haematol. 2015 Dec;2(12):e510-1. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00221-5. |
| References_xml | – reference: 26686403 - Lancet Haematol. 2015 Dec;2(12):e510-1. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00221-5. |
| SSID | ssj0001376569 |
| Score | 2.3585787 |
| SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
| Snippet | Good blood management is an important determinant of outcome in cardiac surgery. Guidelines recommend restrictive red blood cell transfusion. Our objective was... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | e543 |
| SubjectTerms | Blood Loss, Surgical Blood Transfusion, Autologous Cardiac Surgical Procedures Erythrocyte Transfusion Erythrocytes Humans Odds Ratio Treatment Outcome |
| Title | Indications for red blood cell transfusion in cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26686409 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1751195114 |
| Volume | 2 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000366033900013&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1LS8QwEA7qinjx_VhfRPCgh2C3TZrUi4i4KLjLgg_2tqRJBvZgd912_f1O2q49CYKXHgqFNv0m882XeRBy0QkUOIWWZhxwxhMXsFTZkIVCGZBG6rCsen9_lv2-Gg6TQS245XVa5WJPLDdqOzFeI79GN-e7kyF9v51-Mj81yp-u1iM0lkkrQirjUS2HqtFY0HpEOdUuRJ7BIow3miKe65efm5cdceW5DmLmd6JZOpzu5n9fdYts1FST3lXY2CZLLtsha736MH2X2KfMLhQ7ityVzpylZSI79XI-LUpOO_dyGh1n1JRYMjSvCqlvqKZNG2halcBQnVn64QrNdN3sZI-8dR9e7x9ZPXSBGaFkwbgNAh3FRgfcmTRMBHAtQaVWCUiMBCskAKSxi2KlhQx0wp2yPFbWCIhCGe6TlWySuUNCLU9lDEhIwHa4Q6_oFCAbiyFKFcaBtk3OF-s3QlD7T9OZm8zzUbOCbXJQ_YTRtOq-MULwqBij0qM_PH1M1pHgiCr95IS0AE3anZJV81WM89lZiRa89ge9b_L2yWk |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Indications+for+red+blood+cell+transfusion+in+cardiac+surgery%3A+a+systematic+review+and+meta-analysis&rft.jtitle=The+Lancet.+Haematology&rft.au=Patel%2C+Nishith+N&rft.au=Avlonitis%2C+Vassilios+S&rft.au=Jones%2C+Hayley+E&rft.au=Reeves%2C+Barnaby+C&rft.date=2015-12-01&rft.eissn=2352-3026&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=e543&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2FS2352-3026%2815%2900198-2&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F26686409&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F26686409&rft.externalDocID=26686409 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2352-3026&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2352-3026&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2352-3026&client=summon |