Cargando…

Restrictive vs. Liberal Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategy in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: Anemia is frequent in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and the optimal red blood cell transfusion strategy for AMI patients with anemia is still controversial. We aimed to compare the efficacy of restrictive and liberal red cell transfusion strategies in AMI patients with...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Yeshen, Xu, Zhengrong, Huang, Yuming, Ye, Qirao, Xie, Nianjin, Zeng, Lihuan, Lian, Xingji, Dai, Yining, Chen, Jiyan, He, Pengcheng, Tan, Ning, Liu, Yuanhui
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8636896/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34869640
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.736163
_version_ 1784608628619083776
author Zhang, Yeshen
Xu, Zhengrong
Huang, Yuming
Ye, Qirao
Xie, Nianjin
Zeng, Lihuan
Lian, Xingji
Dai, Yining
Chen, Jiyan
He, Pengcheng
Tan, Ning
Liu, Yuanhui
author_facet Zhang, Yeshen
Xu, Zhengrong
Huang, Yuming
Ye, Qirao
Xie, Nianjin
Zeng, Lihuan
Lian, Xingji
Dai, Yining
Chen, Jiyan
He, Pengcheng
Tan, Ning
Liu, Yuanhui
author_sort Zhang, Yeshen
collection PubMed
description Objective: Anemia is frequent in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and the optimal red blood cell transfusion strategy for AMI patients with anemia is still controversial. We aimed to compare the efficacy of restrictive and liberal red cell transfusion strategies in AMI patients with anemia. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov, from their inception until March 2021. Studies designed to compare the efficacy between restrictive and liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies in patients with AMI were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, including overall mortality, in-hospital or follow-up mortality. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were presented and pooled by random-effects models. Results: The search yielded a total of 6,630 participants in six studies. A total of 2,008 patients received restrictive red blood cell transfusion while 4,622 patients were given liberal red blood cell transfusion. No difference was found in overall mortality and follow-up mortality between restrictive and liberal transfusion groups (RR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.82–1.40, P = 0.62; RR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.56–1.42, P = 0.62). However, restrictive transfusion tended to have a higher risk of in-hospital mortality compared with liberal transfusion (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.00–1.50, P = 0.05). No secondary outcomes, including follow-up reinfarction, stroke, and acute heart failure, differed significantly between the two groups. In addition, subgroup analysis showed no differences in overall mortality between the two groups based on sample size and design. Conclusion: Restrictive and liberal red blood cell transfusion have a similar effect on overall mortality and follow-up mortality in AMI patients with anemia. However, restrictive transfusion tended to have a higher risk of in-hospital mortality compared with liberal transfusion. The findings suggest that transfusion strategy should be further evaluated in future studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8636896
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86368962021-12-03 Restrictive vs. Liberal Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategy in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Zhang, Yeshen Xu, Zhengrong Huang, Yuming Ye, Qirao Xie, Nianjin Zeng, Lihuan Lian, Xingji Dai, Yining Chen, Jiyan He, Pengcheng Tan, Ning Liu, Yuanhui Front Cardiovasc Med Cardiovascular Medicine Objective: Anemia is frequent in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and the optimal red blood cell transfusion strategy for AMI patients with anemia is still controversial. We aimed to compare the efficacy of restrictive and liberal red cell transfusion strategies in AMI patients with anemia. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov, from their inception until March 2021. Studies designed to compare the efficacy between restrictive and liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies in patients with AMI were included. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, including overall mortality, in-hospital or follow-up mortality. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were presented and pooled by random-effects models. Results: The search yielded a total of 6,630 participants in six studies. A total of 2,008 patients received restrictive red blood cell transfusion while 4,622 patients were given liberal red blood cell transfusion. No difference was found in overall mortality and follow-up mortality between restrictive and liberal transfusion groups (RR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.82–1.40, P = 0.62; RR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.56–1.42, P = 0.62). However, restrictive transfusion tended to have a higher risk of in-hospital mortality compared with liberal transfusion (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.00–1.50, P = 0.05). No secondary outcomes, including follow-up reinfarction, stroke, and acute heart failure, differed significantly between the two groups. In addition, subgroup analysis showed no differences in overall mortality between the two groups based on sample size and design. Conclusion: Restrictive and liberal red blood cell transfusion have a similar effect on overall mortality and follow-up mortality in AMI patients with anemia. However, restrictive transfusion tended to have a higher risk of in-hospital mortality compared with liberal transfusion. The findings suggest that transfusion strategy should be further evaluated in future studies. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8636896/ /pubmed/34869640 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.736163 Text en Copyright © 2021 Zhang, Xu, Huang, Ye, Xie, Zeng, Lian, Dai, Chen, He, Tan and Liu. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Cardiovascular Medicine
Zhang, Yeshen
Xu, Zhengrong
Huang, Yuming
Ye, Qirao
Xie, Nianjin
Zeng, Lihuan
Lian, Xingji
Dai, Yining
Chen, Jiyan
He, Pengcheng
Tan, Ning
Liu, Yuanhui
Restrictive vs. Liberal Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategy in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Restrictive vs. Liberal Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategy in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Restrictive vs. Liberal Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategy in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Restrictive vs. Liberal Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategy in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Restrictive vs. Liberal Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategy in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Restrictive vs. Liberal Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategy in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort restrictive vs. liberal red blood cell transfusion strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Cardiovascular Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8636896/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34869640
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.736163
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangyeshen restrictivevsliberalredbloodcelltransfusionstrategyinpatientswithacutemyocardialinfarctionandanemiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT xuzhengrong restrictivevsliberalredbloodcelltransfusionstrategyinpatientswithacutemyocardialinfarctionandanemiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT huangyuming restrictivevsliberalredbloodcelltransfusionstrategyinpatientswithacutemyocardialinfarctionandanemiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yeqirao restrictivevsliberalredbloodcelltransfusionstrategyinpatientswithacutemyocardialinfarctionandanemiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT xienianjin restrictivevsliberalredbloodcelltransfusionstrategyinpatientswithacutemyocardialinfarctionandanemiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zenglihuan restrictivevsliberalredbloodcelltransfusionstrategyinpatientswithacutemyocardialinfarctionandanemiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lianxingji restrictivevsliberalredbloodcelltransfusionstrategyinpatientswithacutemyocardialinfarctionandanemiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT daiyining restrictivevsliberalredbloodcelltransfusionstrategyinpatientswithacutemyocardialinfarctionandanemiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chenjiyan restrictivevsliberalredbloodcelltransfusionstrategyinpatientswithacutemyocardialinfarctionandanemiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hepengcheng restrictivevsliberalredbloodcelltransfusionstrategyinpatientswithacutemyocardialinfarctionandanemiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT tanning restrictivevsliberalredbloodcelltransfusionstrategyinpatientswithacutemyocardialinfarctionandanemiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT liuyuanhui restrictivevsliberalredbloodcelltransfusionstrategyinpatientswithacutemyocardialinfarctionandanemiaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis