403
Views
9
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Cardiovascular

Restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion in patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis

, , , &
Pages 761-768 | Received 24 Aug 2016, Accepted 04 Jan 2017, Published online: 03 Feb 2017
 

Abstract

Objectives: To compare clinical outcomes between restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion strategies in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD).

Research design and methods: A literature search from January 1966 to May 2016 was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library to find trials evaluating a restrictive hemoglobin transfusion trigger of ≤8 g/dL, compared with a more liberal trigger. Two study authors independently extracted data from the trials. The primary outcome was mortality and the secondary outcome was subsequent myocardial infarction. Relative risks (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were assessed.

Results: Six trials involving 133,058 participants were included in this study. Pooled results revealed no difference in mortality between the liberal transfusion and restrictive transfusions (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.91–1.52, P = .22). Subgroup analysis revealed that a restrictive transfusion strategy was associated with a higher risk of in-hospital mortality (RR = 1.38, 95% CI = 1.15–1.67, P < .001) and 30 day mortality (RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 1.01–1.45, P = .03), compared with the liberal strategy. No significant difference was found between the liberal transfusion strategy and restrictive transfusion strategy in risk for subsequent myocardial infarction (RR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.57–2.06, P = .80).

Limitations: Limitations include (1) limited number of trials, especially those evaluating myocardial infarction, (2) observed heterogeneity, (3) confounding by indication and other inherent bias may exist.

Conclusion: The findings suggest that restrictive blood transfusion was associated with higher in-hospital and 30 day mortality than liberal blood transfusion in CAD patients. The conclusions are mainly based on retrospective studies and should not be considered as recommendation before they are supported by randomized controlled trials.

Declaration of financial/other relationships

Y.W., X.S., M.W., Y.C., and Q.Z. have disclosed that they have no significant relationships with or financial interests in any commercial companies related to this study or article.

CMRO peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Zhi Zeng for editing and proofreading this manuscript.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 681.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.