About this item:

270 Views | 190 Downloads

Author Notes:

Corresponding Author: David J. Murphy, MD, PhD, Emory University School of Medicine, 49 Jesse Hill Jr. Drive, Atlanta, GA 30303, david.j.murphy@emory.edu, Fax: 404-616-8455

Dr. Roback disclosed other relationships/activities (unrelated to manuscript): 1) Member, Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee, American Association of Blood Banks (2014 - present) 2) Chair and Member, NIH/NHLBI Review Group ZRG1 VH-F (55)R, Selected Topics in Transfusion Medicine (2015) 3) Standing Member, NHLBI Program Projects Review Committee (2015 – 2019) 4) Consultant, UnitedPharma, Duluth, GA (MacoPharma US; CLIA 11D1052845) (2006 – 2016) 5) Consultant, Transfusion & Transplantation Technologies LLC (3Ti), Atlanta, GA (CLIA 11D1054838) (2008 – 2016) 6) Consultant, Castle Medical, Inc., Smyrna, GA (CLIA 11D2017949) (2010 – present) 7) Consultant, CSL Plasma, Inc., Decatur, GA (CLIA 11D2064762) (2013 – present) 8) Consultant, BioMet, Warsaw Indiana (2014 – present) 9) Editorial Board: Transfusion (Journal of the American Association of Blood Banks; AABB); 2004 – present).

See publication full list of acknowledgement.

Conflicts of interest: None

Subjects:

Research Funding:

Supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number UL1TR000454 and TL1TR000456.

Dr. Murphy received support for article research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). His institution received funding (Supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number UL1TR000454 and TL1TR000456).

Dr. Seitz received support for article research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and disclosed other (He was supported by a grant from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under award number UL1TR000454).

Dr. Sevransky received funding from the Food and Drug Administration and received support for article research from the FDA. His institution received funding from the Society for Critical Care Medicine

Dr. Martin received support for article research from the NIH and received funding from CR Bard, Cumberland Pharmaceuticals, and Grifols. His institution received funding from the NIH & FDA, Baxter Healthcare.

Keywords:

  • Science & Technology
  • Life Sciences & Biomedicine
  • Critical Care Medicine
  • General & Internal Medicine
  • clinical protocols
  • critical care/therapy
  • erythrocyte transfusion
  • evidence-based medicine
  • intensive care unit/organization and administration
  • BLOOD-CELL TRANSFUSION
  • CRITICALLY-ILL PATIENTS
  • CLINICAL-PRACTICE GUIDELINE
  • CRITICAL ILLNESS OUTCOMES
  • STATES CRITICAL ILLNESS
  • PHYSICIAN ORDER ENTRY
  • ACUTE LUNG INJURY
  • UNITED-STATES
  • COMPONENT UTILIZATION
  • SYSTEM

Evaluation of RBC Transfusion Practice in Adult ICUs and the Effect of Restrictive Transfusion Protocols on Routine Care

Tools:

Journal Title:

Critical Care Medicine

Volume:

Volume 45, Number 2

Publisher:

, Pages 271-281

Type of Work:

Article | Post-print: After Peer Review

Abstract:

Objective: Research supports the efficacy and safety of restrictive transfusion protocols to reduce avoidable RBC transfusions, but evidence of their effectiveness in practice is limited. This study assessed whether admission to an ICU with an restrictive transfusion protocol reduces the likelihood of transfusion for adult patients. Design: Observational study using data from the multicenter, cohort Critical Illness Outcomes Study. Patient-level analyses were conducted with RBC transfusion on day of enrollment as the outcome and admission to an ICU with a restrictive transfusion protocol as the exposure of interest. Covariates included demographics, hospital course (e.g., lowest hematocrit, blood loss), severity of illness (e.g., Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score), interventions (e.g., sedation/analgesia), and ICU characteristics (e.g., size). Multivariable logistic regression modeling assessed the independent effects of restrictive transfusion protocols on transfusions. Setting: Fifty-nine U.S. ICUs. Patients: A total of 6,027 adult I CU patients. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Of the 59 study ICUs, 24 had an restrictive transfusion protocol; 2,510 patients (41.6%) were in an ICU with an restrictive transfusion protocol. The frequency of RBC transfusion among patients with severe (hematocrit, < 21%), moderate (hematocrit, 21-30%), and mild (hematocrit, > 30%) anemia in restrictive transfusion protocol ICUs was 67%, 19%, and 4%, respectively, compared with 60%, 14%, and 2% for those in ICUs without an restrictive transfusion protocol. Only 27% of transfusions were associated with a hematocrit less than 21%. Adjusting for confounding factors, restrictive transfusion protocols independently reduced the odds of transfusion in moderate anemia with an odds ratio of 0.59 (95% CI, 0.36-0.96) while demonstrating no effect in mild (p = 0.93) or severe (p = 0.52) anemia. Conclusions: In this sample of ICU patients, transfusions often occurred outside evidence-based guidelines, but admission to an ICU with an restrictive transfusion protocol did reduce the risk of transfusion in moderately anemic patients controlling for patient and ICU factors. This study supports the effectiveness of restrictive transfusion protocols for influencing transfusions in clinical practice.

Copyright information:

© 2017 Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

Export to EndNote