PofoliaShared via Pofolia

New England Journal of Medicine· 2013Q1· Clinical trial

Transfusion Strategies for Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Càndid Villanueva, Alan Colomo, Alba Fernández Bosch, Mar Concepción et al.

Short summary

A restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy (hemoglobin <7 g/dL) significantly improved 6-week survival by 4% (95% vs. 91%) and reduced re-bleeding and adverse events compared to a liberal strategy (hemoglobin <9 g/dL) in 921 patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Restrictive transfusion (Hb <7 g/dL) improved 6-week survival by 4% (95% vs 91%) in acute upper GI bleeding.
  • Restrictive strategy reduced re-bleeding (10% vs 16%) and adverse events (40% vs 48%).
  • Liberal transfusion strategy increased portal pressure, while restrictive did not.
  • Survival benefit was significant in patients with cirrhosis and Child-Pugh A/B disease.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The hemoglobin threshold for transfusion of red cells in patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding is controversial. We compared the efficacy and safety of a restrictive transfusion strategy with those of a liberal transfusion strategy. METHODS: We enrolled 921 patients with severe acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and randomly assigned 461 of them to a restrictive strategy (transfusion when the hemoglobin level fell below 7 g per deciliter) and 460 to a liberal strategy (transfusion when the hemoglobin fell below 9 g per deciliter). Randomization was stratified according to the presence or absence of liver cirrhosis. RESULTS: A total of 225 patients assigned to the restrictive strategy (51%), as compared with 61 assigned to the liberal strategy (14%), did not receive transfusions (P<0.001) [corrected].The probability of survival at 6 weeks was higher in the restrictive-strategy group than in the liberal-strategy group (95% vs. 91%; hazard ratio for death with restrictive strategy, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.92; P=0.02). Further bleeding occurred in 10% of the patients in the restrictive-strategy group as compared with 16% of the patients in the liberal-strategy group (P=0.01), and adverse events occurred in 40% as compared with 48% (P=0.02). The probability of survival was slightly higher with the restrictive strategy than with the liberal strategy in the subgroup of patients who had bleeding associated with a peptic ulcer (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.26 to 1.25) and was significantly higher in the subgroup of patients with cirrhosis and Child-Pugh class A or B disease (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.85), but not in those with cirrhosis and Child-Pugh class C disease (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.37). Within the first 5 days, the portal-pressure gradient increased significantly in patients assigned to the liberal strategy (P=0.03) but not in those assigned to the restrictive strategy. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with a liberal transfusion strategy, a restrictive strategy significantly improved outcomes in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. (Funded by Fundació Investigació Sant Pau; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00414713.).

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. New England Journal of Medicine, 2013 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Critical Care and Intensive Care MedicineMedicine