Liberal or Restrictive Transfusion Strategy in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury.

BACKGROUND: The effect of a liberal transfusion strategy as compared with a restrictive strategy on outcomes in critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned adults with moderate or severe traumatic brain injury and anemia to receive transfusion of red cells according to a liberal strategy (transfusions initiated at a hemoglobin level of ≤10 g per deciliter) or a restrictive strategy (transfusions initiated at ≤7 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was an unfavorable outcome as assessed by the score on the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended at 6 months, which we categorized with the use of a sliding dichotomy that was based on the prognosis of each patient at baseline. Secondary outcomes included mortality, functional independence, quality of life, and depression at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 742 patients underwent randomization, with 371 assigned to each group. The analysis of the primary outcome included 722 patients. The median hemoglobin level in the intensive care unit was 10.8 g per deciliter in the group assigned to the liberal strategy and 8.8 g per deciliter in the group assigned to the restrictive strategy. An unfavorable outcome occurred in 249 of 364 patients (68.4%) in the liberal-strategy group and in 263 of 358 (73.5%) in the restrictive-strategy group (adjusted absolute difference, restrictive strategy vs. liberal strategy, 5.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 13.7). Among survivors, a liberal strategy was associated with higher scores on some but not all the scales assessing functional independence and quality of life. No association was observed between the transfusion strategy and mortality or depression. Venous thromboembolic events occurred in 8.4% of the patients in each group, and acute respiratory distress syndrome occurred in 3.3% and 0.8% of patients in the liberal-strategy and restrictive-strategy groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not reduce the risk of an unfavorable neurologic outcome at 6 months. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; HEMOTION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03260478.).

Impact of Rounding Checklists on the Outcomes of Patients Admitted to ICUs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of ICU rounding checklists on outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) were searched from inception to May 10, 2024. STUDY SELECTION: Cohort studies, case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials comparing the use of rounding checklists to no checklists were included. Other article types were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included ICU and 30-day mortality; hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS); duration of mechanical ventilation; and frequency of catheter-associated urinary tract infections, central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), and ventilator-associated pneumonia. Additional outcomes included healthcare provider perceptions of checklists. DATA SYNTHESIS: Pooled estimates were obtained using an inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis model. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. There were 30 included studies (including > 32,000 patients) in the review. Using an ICU rounding checklist was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.92; 12 observational studies; 17,269 patients; I2 = 48%; very low certainty of evidence). The use of an ICU rounding checklist was also associated with reduced ICU mortality (8 observational studies, p = 0.006), 30-day mortality (2 observational studies, p < 0.001), hospital LOS (11 observational studies, p = 0.02), catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) (6 observational studies, p = 0.01), and CLABSI (6 observational studies, p = 0.02). Otherwise, there were no significant differences with using ICU rounding checklists on other patient-related outcomes. Healthcare providers' perceptions of checklists were generally positive. CONCLUSIONS: The use of an ICU rounding checklist may improve in-hospital mortality, as well as other important patient-related outcomes. However, well-designed randomized studies are necessary to increase the certainty of evidence and determine which elements should be included in an ICU rounding checklist.