Morris A. Blajchman

BACKGROUND: To determine whether a restrictive strategy of red-cell transfusion and a liberal strategy produced equivalent results in critically ill patients, we compared the rates of death from all causes at 30 days and the severity of organ dysfunction. METHODS: We enrolled 838 critically ill patients with euvolemia after initial treatment who had hemoglobin concentrations of less than 9.0 g per deciliter within 72 hours after admission to the intensive care unit and randomly assigned 418 patients to a restrictive strategy of transfusion, in which red cells were transfused if the hemoglobin concentration dropped below 7.0 g per deciliter and hemoglobin concentrations were maintained at 7.0 to 9.0 g per deciliter, and 420 patients to a liberal strategy, in which transfusions were given when the hemoglobin concentration fell below 10.0 g per deciliter and hemoglobin concentrations were maintained at 10.0 to 12.0 g per deciliter. RESULTS: Overall, 30-day mortality was similar in the two groups (18.7 percent vs. 23.3 percent, P= 0.11). However, the rates were significantly lower with the restrictive transfusion strategy among patients who were less acutely ill -- those with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of < or =20 (8.7 percent in the restrictive-strategy group and 16.1 percent in the liberal-strategy group; P=0.03) -- and among patients who were less than 55 years of age (5.7 percent and 13.0 percent, respectively; P=0.02), but not among patients with clinically significant cardiac disease (20.5 percent and 22.9 percent, respectively; P=0.69). The mortality rate during hospitalization was significantly lower in the restrictive-strategy group (22.3 percent vs. 28.1 percent, P=0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A restrictive strategy of red-cell transfusion is at least as effective as and possibly superior to a liberal transfusion strategy in critically ill patients, with the possible exception of patients with acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina.

BACKGROUND: Antifibrinolytic agents are commonly used during cardiac surgery to minimize bleeding and to reduce exposure to blood products. We sought to determine whether aprotinin was superior to either tranexamic acid or aminocaproic acid in decreasing massive postoperative bleeding and other clinically important consequences. METHODS: In this multicenter, blinded trial, we randomly assigned 2331 high-risk cardiac surgical patients to one of three groups: 781 received aprotinin, 770 received tranexamic acid, and 780 received aminocaproic acid. The primary outcome was massive postoperative bleeding. Secondary outcomes included death from any cause at 30 days. RESULTS: The trial was terminated early because of a higher rate of death in patients receiving aprotinin. A total of 74 patients (9.5%) in the aprotinin group had massive bleeding, as compared with 93 (12.1%) in the tranexamic acid group and 94 (12.1%) in the aminocaproic acid group (relative risk in the aprotinin group for both comparisons, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 1.05). At 30 days, the rate of death from any cause was 6.0% in the aprotinin group, as compared with 3.9% in the tranexamic acid group (relative risk, 1.55; 95% CI, 0.99 to 2.42) and 4.0% in the aminocaproic acid group (relative risk, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.98 to 2.36). The relative risk of death in the aprotinin group, as compared with that in both groups receiving lysine analogues, was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.06 to 2.22). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the possibility of a modest reduction in the risk of massive bleeding, the strong and consistent negative mortality trend associated with aprotinin, as compared with the lysine analogues, precludes its use in high-risk cardiac surgery. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN15166455 [controlled-trials.com].).

Allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT)-related immunomodulation (TRIM) encompasses the laboratory immune aberrations that occur after ABT and their established or purported clinical effects. TRIM is a real biologic phenomenon resulting in at least one established beneficial clinical effect in humans, but the existence of deleterious clinical TRIM effects has not yet been confirmed. Initially, TRIM encompassed effects attributable to ABT by immunomodulatory mechanisms (e.g., cancer recurrence, postoperative infection, or virus activation). More recently, TRIM has also included effects attributable to ABT by pro-inflammatory mechanisms (e.g., multiple-organ failure or mortality). TRIM effects may be mediated by: (1) allogeneic mononuclear cells; (2) white-blood-cell (WBC)-derived soluble mediators; and/or (3) soluble HLA peptides circulating in allogeneic plasma. This review categorizes the available randomized controlled trials based on the inference(s) that they permit about possible mediator(s) of TRIM, and examines the strength of the evidence available for relying on WBC reduction or autologous transfusion to prevent TRIM effects.

As the risks of allogeneic blood transfusion (ABT)-transmitted viruses were reduced to exceedingly low levels in the US, transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI), hemolytic transfusion reactions (HTRs), and transfusion-associated sepsis (TAS) emerged as the leading causes of ABT-related deaths. Since 2004, preventive measures for TRALI and TAS have been implemented, but their implementation remains incomplete. Infectious causes of ABT-related deaths currently account for less than 15% of all transfusion-related mortality, but the possibility remains that a new transfusion-transmitted agent causing a fatal infectious disease may emerge in the future. Aside from these established complications of ABT, randomized controlled trials comparing recipients of non-white blood cell (WBC)-reduced versus WBC-reduced blood components in cardiac surgery have documented increased mortality in association with the use of non-WBC-reduced ABT. ABT-related mortality can thus be further reduced by universally applying the policies of avoiding prospective donors alloimmunized to WBC antigens from donating plasma products, adopting strategies to prevent HTRs, WBC-reducing components transfused to patients undergoing cardiac surgery, reducing exposure to allogeneic donors through conservative transfusion guidelines and avoidance of product pooling, and implementing pathogen-reduction technologies to address the residual risk of TAS as well as the potential risk of the next transfusion-transmitted agent to emerge in the foreseeable future.

OBJECTIVE: To compare a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy with a more liberal strategy in volume-resuscitated critically ill patients with cardiovascular disease. SETTING: Twenty-two academic and three community critical care units across Canada. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. STUDY POPULATION: Three hundred fifty-seven critically ill patients with cardiovascular diseases from the Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care trial who had a hemoglobin concentration of <90 g/L within 72 hrs of admission to the intensive care unit. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to a restrictive strategy to receive allogeneic red blood cell transfusions at a hemoglobin concentration of 70 g/L (and maintained between 70 and 90 g/L) or a liberal strategy to receive red blood cells at 100 g/L (and maintained between 100 and 120 g/L). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics in the restrictive (n = 160) and the liberal group (n = 197) were comparable, except for the use of cardiac and anesthetic drugs (p <.02). Average hemoglobin concentrations (85 +/- 6.2 vs. 103 +/- 6.7 g/L; p <.01) and red blood cell units transfused (2.4 +/- 4.1 vs. 5.2 +/- 5.0 red blood cell units; p <.01) were significantly lower in the restrictive compared with the liberal group. Overall, all mortality rates were similar in both study groups, including 30-day (23% vs. 23%; p = 1.00), 60-day, hospital, and intensive care unit rates. Changes in multiple organ dysfunction from baseline scores were significantly less in the restrictive transfusion group overall (0.2 +/- 4.2 vs. 1.3 +/- 4.4; p =.02). In the 257 patients with severe ischemic heart disease, there were no statistically significant differences in all survival measures, but this is the only subgroup where the restrictive group had lower but nonsignificant absolute survival rates compared with the patients in the liberal group. CONCLUSION: A restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy generally appears to be safe in most critically ill patients with cardiovascular disease, with the possible exception of patients with acute myocardial infarcts and unstable angina.