EBQ:Transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: Difference between revisions

(study design)
Line 20: Line 20:


==Conclusion==
==Conclusion==
*Lower mortality in the restrictive transfusion group (hemoglobin threshold 7) 5% vs 9% (p=0.02)
*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


==Major Points==  
==Study Design==
*Transfusion threshold of hemoglobin 7g/deciliter if hemodynamically stable
*Randomized prospective trial
*Study excluded unstable patients
*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==
==Outcome==
*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


==Funding==
==See Also==
*No external funding
 
==Sources==


==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

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

References