Frailty in acute coronary syndromes. A systematic review and narrative synthesis of frailty assessment tools and interventions from randomised controlled trials.

AIM: We aimed to review all randomised controlled trial (RCT) data to explore optimal identification and treatment strategies of frail patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS). METHODS: The protocol was preregistered (PROSPERO - CRD42021250235). We performed a systematic review including RCT's that 1; used at least one frailty assessment tool to assess frailty and its impact on outcomes in patients diagnosed with ACS and 2; used at least one intervention where change in frailty was measured in patients diagnosed with ACS. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched on the 1st April 2021 and updated on 4th July 2023. Owing to low search output results are presented as a narrative synthesis of available evidence. RESULTS: A single RCT used a frailty assessment tool. A single RCT specifically targeted frailty with their intervention. This precluded further quantitative analysis. There was indication of selection bias against frail participants, and a signal of value for physical activity measurement in frail ACS patients. There was a high level of uncertainty and low level of robustness of this evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Data from RCT's alone is inadequate in answering the reviews question. Future RCT's need to address ways to incorporate frail participants, whilst mitigating selection biases. Physical performance aspects of the frailty syndrome appear to be high yield modifiable targets that improve outcomes. Intervention trials should consider using change in frailty status as an outcome measure. Any trials that include frail participants should present data specifically attributable to this group.

The NightLife study - the clinical and cost-effectiveness of thrice-weekly, extended, in-centre nocturnal haemodialysis versus daytime haemodialysis using a mixed methods approach: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In-centre nocturnal haemodialysis (INHD) offers extended-hours haemodialysis, 6 to 8 h thrice-weekly overnight, with the support of dialysis specialist nurses. There is increasing observational data demonstrating potential benefits of INHD on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There is a lack of randomised controlled trial (RCT) data to confirm these benefits and assess safety. METHODS: The NightLife study is a pragmatic, two-arm, multicentre RCT comparing the impact of 6 months INHD to conventional haemodialysis (thrice-weekly daytime in-centre haemodialysis, 3.5-5 h per session). The primary outcome is the total score from the Kidney Disease Quality of Life tool at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include sleep and cognitive function, measures of safety, adherence to dialysis and impact on clinical parameters. There is an embedded Process Evaluation to assess implementation, health economic modelling and a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention to understand factors that influence recruitment and retention. Adults (≥ 18 years old) who have been established on haemodialysis for > 3 months are eligible to participate. DISCUSSION: There are 68,000 adults in the UK that need kidney replacement therapy (KRT), with in-centre haemodialysis the treatment modality for over a third of cases. HRQoL is an independent predictor of hospitalisation and mortality in individuals on maintenance dialysis. Haemodialysis is associated with poor HRQoL in comparison to the general population. INHD has the potential to improve HRQoL. Vigorous RCT evidence of effectiveness is lacking. The NightLife study is an essential step in the understanding of dialysis therapies and will guide patient-centred decisions regarding KRT in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration number: ISRCTN87042063. Registered: 14/07/2020.

Preoperative intravenous iron for anaemia in elective major open abdominal surgery: the PREVENTT RCT.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia affects 30-50% of patients before they undergo major surgery. Preoperative anaemia is associated with increased need for blood transfusion, postoperative complications and worse patient outcomes after surgery. International guidelines support the use of intravenous iron to correct anaemia in patients before surgery. However, the use of preoperative intravenous iron for patient benefit has not been assessed in the setting of a formal clinical trial. OBJECTIVES: To assess if intravenous iron given to patients with anaemia before major abdominal surgery is beneficial by reducing transfusion rates, postoperative complications, hospital stay and re-admission to hospital, and improving quality of life outcomes. DESIGN: A multicentre, double-blinded, randomised, controlled, Phase III clinical trial, with 1 : 1 randomisation comparing placebo (normal saline) with intravenous iron (intravenous ferric carboxymaltose 1000 mg). Randomisation and treatment allocation were by a secure web-based service. SETTING: The study was conducted across 46 hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales between September 2013 and September 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged > 18 years, undergoing elective major open abdominal surgery, with anaemia [Hb level of > 90 g/l and < 120 g/l (female patients) and < 130 g/l (male patients)] who could undergo randomisation and treatment 10-42 days before their operation. INTERVENTION: Double-blinded study comparing placebo of normal saline with 1000 mg of ferric carboxymaltose administered 10-42 days prior to surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Co-primary end points were risk of blood transfusion or death at 30 days postoperatively, and rate of blood transfusions at 30 days post operation. RESULTS: A total of 487 patients were randomised (243 given placebo and 244 given intravenous iron), of whom 474 completed the trial and provided data for the analysis of the co-primary end points. The use of intravenous iron increased preoperative Hb levels (mean difference 4.7 g/l, 95% confidence interval 2.7 to 6.8 g/l; p < 0.0001), but had no effect compared with placebo on risk of blood transfusion or death (risk ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.37; p = 0.84; absolute risk difference +0.8%, 95% confidence interval -7.3% to 9.0%), or rates of blood transfusion (rate ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.43; p = 0.93; absolute rate difference 0.00, 95% confidence interval -0.14 to 0.15). There was no difference in postoperative complications or hospital stay. The intravenous iron group had higher Hb levels at the 8-week follow-up (difference in mean 10.7 g/l, 95% confidence interval 7.8 to 13.7 g/l; p < 0.0001). There were a total of 71 re-admissions to hospital for postoperative complications in the placebo group, compared with 38 re-admissions in the intravenous iron group (rate ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 0.85; p = 0.009). There were no differences between the groups in terms of mortality (two per group at 30 days post operation) or in any of the prespecified safety end points or serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with anaemia prior to elective major abdominal surgery, there was no benefit from giving intravenous iron before the operation. FUTURE WORK: The impact of iron repletion on recovery from postoperative anaemia, and the association with reduced re-admission to hospital for complications, should be investigated. LIMITATIONS: In the preoperative intravenous iron to treat anaemia in major surgery (PREVENTT) trial, all patients included had anaemia and only 20% had their anaemia corrected before surgery. The definition and causality of iron deficiency in this setting is not clear. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN67322816 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01692418. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25 No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

In patients undergoing major surgery, anaemia (low blood count) is a common problem. Anaemia is often a consequence of the disease necessitating surgery and can make people feel tired and unwell. Anaemia increases the need for a blood transfusion at the time of surgery, and patients with anaemia have more complications from surgery, prolonged hospital stay and delayed recovery. Iron deficiency is the most common cause of anaemia. An iron infusion has been shown to be effective to rapidly treat anaemia, but it is not known if this is effective in treating anaemia in the presurgical setting, and whether or not this may benefit patients. The main aim of this study was to assess if intravenous iron can treat anaemia in patients before major surgery and if this will reduce the need for blood transfusion, make patients feel better and, consequently, help them do better during and after surgery. A total of 487 patients with anaemia were recruited from 46 UK hospitals before major abdominal surgery. Patients were randomly allocated to receive an infusion of iron or placebo 10 days to 6 weeks before their surgery. Patients were followed up at 8 weeks and 6 months after their surgery. Intravenous iron increased the blood count in patients before surgery. There was no difference in blood transfusion rates or patient deaths between those who received intravenous iron and those who received placebo. Similarly, there was no difference in the patients' postoperative complications or length of hospital stay. Patients who received iron had a higher blood count at 8 weeks and 6 months post operation and there were fewer re-admissions to hospital for complications. In conclusion, for patients undergoing major surgery, giving intravenous iron to treat anaemia before the operation did not reduce the need for blood transfusion. Further work is needed to evaluate whether or not there is any benefit after discharge from hospital.

Patient blood management interventions do not lead to important clinical benefits or cost-effectiveness for major surgery: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patient blood management (PBM) interventions aim to improve clinical outcomes by reducing bleeding and transfusion. We assessed whether existing evidence supports the routine use of combinations of these interventions during and after major surgery. METHODS: Five systematic reviews and a National Institute of Health and Care Excellence health economic review of trials of common PBM interventions enrolling participants of any age undergoing surgery were updated. The last search was on June 1, 2019. Studies in trauma, burns, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, gynaecology, dentistry, or critical care were excluded. The co-primary outcomes were: risk of receiving red cell transfusion and 30-day or hospital all-cause mortality. Treatment effects were estimated using random-effects models and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity assessments used I2. Network meta-analyses used a frequentist approach. The protocol was registered prospectively (PROSPERO CRD42018085730). RESULTS: Searches identified 393 eligible randomised controlled trials enrolling 54 917 participants. PBM interventions resulted in a reduction in exposure to red cell transfusion (RR=0.60; 95% CI 0.57, 0.63; I2=77%), but had no statistically significant treatment effect on 30-day or hospital mortality (RR=0.93; 95% CI 0.81, 1.07; I2=0%). Treatment effects were consistent across multiple secondary outcomes, sub-groups and sensitivity analyses that considered clinical setting, type of intervention, and trial quality. Network meta-analysis did not demonstrate additive benefits from the use of multiple interventions. No trial demonstrated that PBM was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: In randomised trials, PBM interventions do not have important clinical benefits beyond reducing bleeding and transfusion in people undergoing major surgery.

Preoperative intravenous iron to treat anaemia before major abdominal surgery (PREVENTT): a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative anaemia affects a high proportion of patients undergoing major elective surgery and is associated with poor outcomes. We aimed to test the hypothesis that intravenous iron given to anaemic patients before major open elective abdominal surgery would correct anaemia, reduce the need for blood transfusions, and improve patient outcomes. METHODS: In a double-blind, parallel-group randomised trial, we recruited adult participants identified with anaemia at preoperative hospital visits before elective major open abdominal surgery at 46 UK tertiary care centres. Anaemia was defined as haemoglobin less than 130 g/L for men and 120 g/L for women. We randomly allocated participants (1:1) via a secure web-based service to receive intravenous iron or placebo 10-42 days before surgery. Intravenous iron was administered as a single 1000 mg dose of ferric carboxymaltose in 100 mL normal saline, and placebo was 100 mL normal saline, both given as an infusion over 15 min. Unblinded study personnel prepared and administered the study drug; participants and other clinical and research staff were blinded to treatment allocation. Coprimary endpoints were risk of the composite outcome of blood transfusion or death, and number of blood transfusions from randomisation to 30 days postoperatively. The primary analysis included all randomly assigned patients with data available for the primary endpoints; safety analysis included all randomly assigned patients according to the treatment received. This study is registered, ISRCTN67322816, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Of 487 participants randomly assigned to placebo (n=243) or intravenous iron (n=244) between Jan 6, 2014, and Sept 28, 2018, complete data for the primary endpoints were available for 474 (97%) individuals. Death or blood transfusion occurred in 67 (28%) of the 237 patients in the placebo group and 69 (29%) of the 237 patients in the intravenous iron group (risk ratio 1·03, 95% CI 0·78-1·37; p=0·84). There were 111 blood transfusions in the placebo group and 105 in the intravenous iron group (rate ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·68-1·43; p=0·93). There were no significant differences between the two groups for any of the prespecified safety endpoints. INTERPRETATION: Preoperative intravenous iron was not superior to placebo to reduce need for blood transfusion when administered to patients with anaemia 10-42 days before elective major abdominal surgery. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Program.

Manubrium-limited ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement (MAVRIC): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve replacement is one of the most common cardiac surgical procedures performed worldwide. Conventional aortic valve replacement surgery is performed via a median sternotomy; the sternum is divided completely from the sternal notch to the xiphisternum. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement, using a new technique called manubrium-limited ministernotomy, divides only the manubrium from the sternal notch to 1 cm below the manubrio-sternal junction. More than one third of patients undergoing conventional sternotomy develop clinically significant bleeding requiring post-operative red blood cell transfusion. Case series data suggest a potentially clinically significant difference in red blood cell transfusion requirements between the two techniques. Given the implications for National Health Service resources and patient outcomes, a definitive trial is needed. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a single-centre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial comparing aortic valve replacement surgery using manubrium-limited ministernotomy (intervention) and conventional median sternotomy (usual care). Two hundred and seventy patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio between the intervention and control arms, stratified by baseline logistic EuroSCORE and haemoglobin value. Patients will be followed for 12 weeks from discharge following their index operation. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who receive a red blood cell transfusion post-operatively within 7 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes include red blood cell and blood product transfusions, blood loss, re-operation rates, sternal wound pain, quality of life, markers of inflammatory response, hospital discharge, health care utilisation, cost and cost effectiveness and adverse events. DISCUSSION: This is the first trial to examine aortic valve replacement via manubrium-limited ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy when comparing red blood cell transfusion rates following surgery. Surgical trials present significant challenges; strengths of this trial include a rigorous research design, standardised surgery performed by experienced consultant cardiothoracic surgeons, an agreed anaesthetic regimen, patient blinding and consultant-led patient recruitment. The MAVRIC trial will demonstrate that complex surgical trials can be delivered to exemplary standards and provide the community with the knowledge required to inform future care for patients requiring aortic valve replacement surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) ISRCTN29567910 . Registered on 3 February 2014.

A multicentre randomised controlled trial of Transfusion Indication Threshold Reduction on transfusion rates, morbidity and health-care resource use following cardiac surgery (TITRe2).

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty about optimal red blood cell transfusion thresholds in cardiac surgery is reflected in widely varying transfusion rates between surgeons and cardiac centres. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that a restrictive compared with a liberal threshold for red blood cell transfusion after cardiac surgery reduces post-operative morbidity and health-care costs. DESIGN: Multicentre, parallel randomised controlled trial and within-trial cost-utility analysis from a UK NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. We could not blind health-care staff but tried to blind participants. Random allocations were generated by computer and minimised by centre and operation. SETTING: Seventeen specialist cardiac surgery centres in UK NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged > 16 years undergoing non-emergency cardiac surgery with post-operative haemoglobin < 9 g/dl. Exclusion criteria were: unwilling to have transfusion owing to beliefs; platelet, red blood cell or clotting disorder; ongoing or recurrent sepsis; and critical limb ischaemia. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the liberal group were eligible for transfusion immediately after randomisation (post-operative haemoglobin < 9 g/dl); participants in the restrictive group were eligible for transfusion if their post-operative haemoglobin fell to < 7.5 g/dl during the index hospital stay. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite outcome of any serious infectious (sepsis or wound infection) or ischaemic event (permanent stroke, myocardial infarction, gut infarction or acute kidney injury) during the 3 months after randomisation. Events were verified or adjudicated by blinded personnel. Secondary outcomes included blood products transfused; infectious events; ischaemic events; quality of life (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions); duration of intensive care or high-dependency unit stay; duration of hospital stay; significant pulmonary morbidity; all-cause mortality; resource use, costs and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: We randomised 2007 participants between 15 July 2009 and 18 February 2013; four withdrew, leaving 1000 and 1003 in the restrictive and liberal groups, respectively. Transfusion rates after randomisation were 53.4% (534/1000) and 92.2% (925/1003). The primary outcome occurred in 35.1% (331/944) and 33.0% (317/962) of participants in the restrictive and liberal groups [odds ratio (OR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.34; p = 0.30], respectively. There were no subgroup effects for the primary outcome, although some sensitivity analyses substantially altered the estimated OR. There were no differences for secondary clinical outcomes except for mortality, with more deaths in the restrictive group (4.2%, 42/1000 vs. 2.6%, 26/1003; hazard ratio 1.64, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.67; p = 0.045). Serious post-operative complications excluding primary outcome events occurred in 35.7% (354/991) and 34.2% (339/991) of participants in the restrictive and liberal groups, respectively. The total cost per participant from surgery to 3 months postoperatively differed little by group, just £182 less (standard error £488) in the restrictive group, largely owing to the difference in red blood cells cost. In the base-case cost-effectiveness results, the point estimate suggested that the restrictive threshold was cost-effective; however, this result was very uncertain partly owing to the negligible difference in quality-adjusted life-years gained. CONCLUSIONS: A restrictive transfusion threshold is not superior to a liberal threshold after cardiac surgery. This finding supports restrictive transfusion due to reduced consumption and costs of red blood cells. However, secondary findings create uncertainty about recommending restrictive transfusion and prompt a new hypothesis that liberal transfusion may be superior after cardiac surgery. Reanalyses of existing trial datasets, excluding all participants who did not breach the liberal threshold, followed by a meta-analysis of the reanalysed results are the most obvious research steps to address the new hypothesis about the possible harm of red blood cell transfusion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN70923932. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 60. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Liberal or restrictive transfusion after cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Whether a restrictive threshold for hemoglobin level in red-cell transfusions, as compared with a liberal threshold, reduces postoperative morbidity and health care costs after cardiac surgery is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, parallel-group trial in which patients older than 16 years of age who were undergoing nonemergency cardiac surgery were recruited from 17 centers in the United Kingdom. Patients with a postoperative hemoglobin level of less than 9 g per deciliter were randomly assigned to a restrictive transfusion threshold (hemoglobin level <7.5 g per deciliter) or a liberal transfusion threshold (hemoglobin level <9 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was a serious infection (sepsis or wound infection) or an ischemic event (permanent stroke [confirmation on brain imaging and deficit in motor, sensory, or coordination functions], myocardial infarction, infarction of the gut, or acute kidney injury) within 3 months after randomization. Health care costs, excluding the index surgery, were estimated from the day of surgery to 3 months after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 2007 patients underwent randomization; 4 participants withdrew, leaving 1000 in the restrictive-threshold group and 1003 in the liberal-threshold group. Transfusion rates after randomization were 53.4% and 92.2% in the two groups, respectively. The primary outcome occurred in 35.1% of the patients in the restrictive-threshold group and 33.0% of the patients in the liberal-threshold group (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.34; P=0.30); there was no indication of heterogeneity according to subgroup. There were more deaths in the restrictive-threshold group than in the liberal-threshold group (4.2% vs. 2.6%; hazard ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.00 to 2.67; P=0.045). Serious postoperative complications, excluding primary-outcome events, occurred in 35.7% of participants in the restrictive-threshold group and 34.2% of participants in the liberal-threshold group. Total costs did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: A restrictive transfusion threshold after cardiac surgery was not superior to a liberal threshold with respect to morbidity or health care costs. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN70923932.).

An open randomized controlled trial of median sternotomy versus anterolateral left thoracotomy on morbidity and health care resource use in patients having off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: the Sternotomy Versus Thoracotomy (STET) trial.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery carried out via a left anterolateral thoracotomy (ThoraCAB) or via a conventional median sternotomy (OPCAB). BACKGROUND: Recent advances in minimally invasive cardiac surgery have extended the technique to allow complete surgical revascularization on the beating heart via thoracotomy. METHODS: Patients undergoing nonemergency primary surgery were enrolled between February 2007 and September 2009 at 2 centers. The primary outcome was the time from surgery to fitness for hospital discharge as defined by objective criteria. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients were randomized to off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery via a median sternotomy (OPCAB) and 91 to off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery via a left anterolateral thoracotomy (ThoraCAB). The surgery was longer for patients in the ThoraCAB group (median, 4.1 vs 3.3 hours) and there were fewer with more than 3 grafts (2% vs 17%). The median time from surgery to fitness for discharge was 6 days (interquartile range, 4-7) in the ThoraCAB group versus 5 days (interquartile range, 4-7) in the OPCAB group (P = .53). The intubation time was shorter, by on average 65 minutes, in the ThoraCAB group (P = .017), although the time in intensive care was similar (P = .91). Pain scores were similar (P = .97), but more analgesia was required in the ThoraCAB group (median duration, 38.8 vs 35.5 hours, P < .001; tramadol use, 66% vs 49%, P = .024). ThoraCAB was associated with significantly worse lung function at discharge (average difference, -0.25 L, P = .01) but quality of life scores at 3 and 12 months were similar (P = .52). The average total cost was 10% higher with ThoraCAB (P = .007). CONCLUSIONS: ThoraCAB resulted in no overall clinical benefit relative to OPCAB.

Thoracic endovascular repair versus open surgical repair - which is the more cost-effective intervention for descending thoracic aortic pathologies?

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular treatment is increasingly used to treat complicated aortic pathology. The aim of the study was to assess if compared with operative repair, thoracic endovascular repair of aorta (TEVAR) was associated with a cost benefit in management of diseases affecting the descending thoracic aorta. We also compared early and mid-term outcomes between the two groups. METHODS: Clinical characteristics, outcomes and hospitalisation costs of 84 consecutive patients undergoing intervention for conditions affecting the descending thoracic aorta were reviewed retrospectively. Hospitalisation costs were calculated from National Health Service (NHS) reference costs for staff time, consumables, transfusion and length of stay. RESULTS: Apart from a higher frequency of acute type B dissection (16/45 vs 5/39, p = 0.047) in the TEVAR group, the baseline characteristics were similar. TEVAR was associated with significant reductions in morbidity (renal dysfunction 11 (31%) vs 5 (10%) p=0.025; in-hospital death 7 (20%) vs 3 (6%), p = 0.03; median intensive therapy unit (ITU) stay 6 (3-11) vs 1 (1-4), p < 0.0001). TEVAR was associated with significantly increased procedural costs (£2468 (€2961) vs £9581 (€11495) p ≤ 0.0001). This was chiefly attributable to the cost of endovascular stents. There was no significant difference in overall hospitalisation costs. TEVAR was associated with significantly lower freedom from death or re-operation (log rank p=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR is associated with reduced morbidity and mortality in the short term. However, no cost benefit was seen with TEVAR even in the short term. In the long term, due to increased risk of re-interventions TEVAR may actually prove to be a more expensive therapeutic option.

Increased mortality, morbidity, and cost associated with red blood cell transfusion after cardiac surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Literature since 2006 was reviewed to identify the harms and costs of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. RECENT FINDINGS: Several studies, in people having various cardiac surgery operations, found strong associations of RBC transfusion with mortality and postoperative morbidity. The effect on mortality was strongest close to the time of operation but extended to 5 years. Morbidity outcomes included serious wound and systemic infections, renal failure, prolonged ventilation, low cardiac index, myocardial infarction, and stroke. RBC transfusion was also strongly associated with increased cardiac intensive care unit and ward postoperative stay, and hence, increased cost of admission; available studies did not consider all resources used and the associated costs. SUMMARY: The harms of RBC transfusion have potentially serious and long-term consequences for patients and are costly for health services. This evidence should shift clinicians' equipoise towards more restrictive transfusion practice. The immediate aim should be to avoid transfusing a small number of RBC units for general malaise attributed to anaemia, a practice that appears to occur in about 50% of transfused patients. Randomized trials comparing restrictive and liberal transfusion triggers are urgently needed to directly compare the benefits and harms from RBC transfusion.

Increased mortality, morbidity, and cost associated with red blood cell transfusion after cardiac surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Literature since 2006 was reviewed to identify the harms and costs of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. RECENT FINDINGS: Several studies, on people having various cardiac surgery operations, found strong associations of RBC transfusion with mortality and postoperative morbidity. The effect on mortality was strongest close to the time of operation but extended to 5 years. Morbidity outcomes included serious wound and systemic infections, renal failure, prolonged ventilation, low cardiac index, myocardial infarction, and stroke. RBC transfusion was also strongly associated with increased intensive care and ward postoperative stay, and hence increased cost of admission; available studies did not consider all resources used and the associated costs. SUMMARY: The harms of RBC transfusion have potentially serious and long-term consequences for patients and are costly for health services. This evidence should shift clinicians' equipoise towards more restrictive transfusion practice. The immediate aim should be to avoid transfusing small numbers of RBC units for general malaise attributed to anaemia, a practice which appears to occur in about 50% of transfused patients. Randomized trials comparing restrictive and liberal transfusion triggers are urgently needed to compare directly the balance of benefits and harms from RBC transfusion.

Increased mortality, postoperative morbidity, and cost after red blood cell transfusion in patients having cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Red blood cell transfusion can both benefit and harm. To inform decisions about transfusion, we aimed to quantify associations of transfusion with clinical outcomes and cost in patients having cardiac surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: Clinical, hematology, and blood transfusion databases were linked with the UK population register. Additional hematocrit information was obtained from intensive care unit charts. Composite infection (respiratory or wound infection or septicemia) and ischemic outcomes (myocardial infarction, stroke, renal impairment, or failure) were prespecified as coprimary end points. Secondary outcomes were resource use, cost, and survival. Associations were estimated by regression modeling with adjustment for potential confounding. All adult patients having cardiac surgery between April 1, 1996, and December 31, 2003, with key exposure and outcome data were included (98%). Adjusted odds ratios for composite infection (737 of 8516) and ischemic outcomes (832 of 8518) for transfused versus nontransfused patients were 3.38 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.60 to 4.40) and 3.35 (95% CI, 2.68 to 4.35), respectively. Transfusion was associated with increased relative cost of admission (any transfusion, 1.42 times [95% CI, 1.37 to 1.46], varying from 1.11 for 1 U to 3.35 for >9 U). At any time after their operations, transfused patients were less likely to have been discharged from hospital (hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.67) and were more likely to have died (0 to 30 days: HR, 6.69; 95% CI, 3.66 to 15.1; 31 days to 1 year: HR, 2.59; 95% CI, 1.68 to 4.17; >1 year: HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.64). CONCLUSIONS: Red blood cell transfusion in patients having cardiac surgery is strongly associated with both infection and ischemic postoperative morbidity, hospital stay, increased early and late mortality, and hospital costs.