EBQ:Transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Difference between revisions
Ostermayer (talk | contribs) |
(study design) |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
==Conclusion== | ==Conclusion== | ||
* | *Compared to a liberal transfusion strategy, a restrictive strategy significantly improved outcomes in patients with acute upper GI bleeding. | ||
==Major Points== | |||
*The restrictive strategy required significantly less transfusions, had a higher probability of survival at 6 weeks, less further bleeding, less adverse effects, and lower mortality compared to the liberal strategy group. | |||
*Restrictive strategy= transfusion threshold of hemoglobin 7g/deL if hemodynamically stable | |||
== | ==Study Design== | ||
* | *Randomized prospective trial | ||
* | *Patients admitted to Barcelona hospital between June 2003 and December 2009 | ||
*Patients randomized by computer, randomization stratified based on presence or absence of liver cirrhosis | |||
**In the restrictive group, Hb threshold for transfusion was 7 g/dL, with target range for post-transfusion of 7-9 g/dL | |||
**In the liberal-strategy group, Hb threshold for transfusion was 9 g/dL, with target range for post-transfusion of 9-11 g/dL | |||
*In both groups, 1 unit of red cells was transfused initially and the hemoglobin level was assessed after transfusion | |||
*Transfusion protocol applied until discharge or death | |||
*Transfusion allowed any time symptoms or signs related to anemia developed, massive bleeding occurred during follow-up, or surgical intervention was required. | |||
*Only pRBCs were used | |||
*Hb measured after admission and again q8h during the first 2 days and every day thereafter | |||
**Hb levels assessed when further bleeding suspected | |||
==Population== | |||
===Patient Demographics=== | |||
==Inclusion Criteria== | ===Inclusion Criteria=== | ||
*Age >18 | *Age >18 | ||
*Melena or hematemasis | *Melena and/or hematemasis (or bloody nasogastric aspirate) | ||
*Consent to blood transfusion | *Consent to blood transfusion | ||
==Exclusion Criteria== | ===Exclusion Criteria=== | ||
*Massive GI bleed | *Massive GI bleed | ||
*Lower GI bleeding | *Lower GI bleeding | ||
| Line 46: | Line 61: | ||
*Transfusion threshold set at hgb 7 with target range 7-9 vs hgb 9 with target range 9-11 | *Transfusion threshold set at hgb 7 with target range 7-9 vs hgb 9 with target range 9-11 | ||
==Outcomes== | |||
== | |||
*Lower mortality with restrictive transfusion strategy 5% vs 9% (p=0.02) | *Lower mortality with restrictive transfusion strategy 5% vs 9% (p=0.02) | ||
| Line 53: | Line 67: | ||
*Death from any cause in the first 45 days | *Death from any cause in the first 45 days | ||
**Lower with restrictive strategy | **Lower with restrictive strategy | ||
95% vs. 91%; hazard ratio for death with restrictive | |||
strategy, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.92; P=0.02) | |||
===Secondary Outcomes=== | ===Secondary Outcomes=== | ||
| Line 69: | Line 85: | ||
==Criticisms== | ==Criticisms & Further Discussion== | ||
*1 unit of pRBCs was transfused up front in both groups. Therefore, there was no true conservative transfusion group. The study suggests that a transfusion threshold of hgb 7 is superior, but cannot definitively answer the question as all patients in the study received a transfusion. | *1 unit of pRBCs was transfused up front in both groups. Therefore, there was no true conservative transfusion group. The study suggests that a transfusion threshold of hgb 7 is superior, but cannot definitively answer the question as all patients in the study received a transfusion. | ||
*All patients received an EGD within 6 hours. This may not be always be achievable. The study findings may not be generalizable. | *All patients received an EGD within 6 hours. This may not be always be achievable. The study findings may not be generalizable. | ||
*Massive GI bleeds, which were excluded from the trial, are not defined | *Massive GI bleeds, which were excluded from the trial, are not defined | ||
== | ==See Also== | ||
==External Links== | |||
==Funding== | |||
*No external funding | |||
==References== | |||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
[[Category:EBQ]][[Category:GI]] | [[Category:EBQ]][[Category:GI]] | ||
Revision as of 23:25, 24 September 2015
Under Review Journal Club Article
Villanueva C. et al. "Transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding". NEJM. 2013. 368(1):11-21.
PubMed Full text PDF
PubMed Full text PDF
Clinical Question
- Is a restrictive transfusion strategy superior to a liberal transfusion strategy in patients with upper GI bleeds?
Conclusion
- Compared to a liberal transfusion strategy, a restrictive strategy significantly improved outcomes in patients with acute upper GI bleeding.
Major Points
- The restrictive strategy required significantly less transfusions, had a higher probability of survival at 6 weeks, less further bleeding, less adverse effects, and lower mortality compared to the liberal strategy group.
- Restrictive strategy= transfusion threshold of hemoglobin 7g/deL if hemodynamically stable
Study Design
- Randomized prospective trial
- Patients admitted to Barcelona hospital between June 2003 and December 2009
- Patients randomized by computer, randomization stratified based on presence or absence of liver cirrhosis
- In the restrictive group, Hb threshold for transfusion was 7 g/dL, with target range for post-transfusion of 7-9 g/dL
- In the liberal-strategy group, Hb threshold for transfusion was 9 g/dL, with target range for post-transfusion of 9-11 g/dL
- In both groups, 1 unit of red cells was transfused initially and the hemoglobin level was assessed after transfusion
- Transfusion protocol applied until discharge or death
- Transfusion allowed any time symptoms or signs related to anemia developed, massive bleeding occurred during follow-up, or surgical intervention was required.
- Only pRBCs were used
- Hb measured after admission and again q8h during the first 2 days and every day thereafter
- Hb levels assessed when further bleeding suspected
Population
Patient Demographics
Inclusion Criteria
- Age >18
- Melena and/or hematemasis (or bloody nasogastric aspirate)
- Consent to blood transfusion
Exclusion Criteria
- Massive GI bleed
- Lower GI bleeding
- ACS
- Stroke/TIA
- Symptomatic PVD
- Transfusion in the previous 90 days
- Recent trauma or surgery
- Decision by attending physician that patient should not get a specific therapy
- Rockall score (assessment of future bleeding risk) of 0 with hemoglobin > 12
Interventions
- Transfusion threshold set at hgb 7 with target range 7-9 vs hgb 9 with target range 9-11
Outcomes
- Lower mortality with restrictive transfusion strategy 5% vs 9% (p=0.02)
Primary Outcomes
- Death from any cause in the first 45 days
- Lower with restrictive strategy
95% vs. 91%; hazard ratio for death with restrictive strategy, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.92; P=0.02)
Secondary Outcomes
- Rate of in hospital hematemasis or melena with hemodynamic instability
- 2 point fall in hemoglobin in 6 hours
- Number of patients requiring transfusion in each group
Subgroup analysis
- Cirrhotic patients
- Lower mortality with restrictive strategy in Child's class A and B
- No difference in Child's class C
- No significant difference when all cirrhotics taken as a group
- Peptic ulcer disease
- No significant difference
Criticisms & Further Discussion
- 1 unit of pRBCs was transfused up front in both groups. Therefore, there was no true conservative transfusion group. The study suggests that a transfusion threshold of hgb 7 is superior, but cannot definitively answer the question as all patients in the study received a transfusion.
- All patients received an EGD within 6 hours. This may not be always be achievable. The study findings may not be generalizable.
- Massive GI bleeds, which were excluded from the trial, are not defined
See Also
External Links
Funding
- No external funding
