MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2599724895 · doi:10.1182/blood.v128.22.96.96

Dose-Dependent Effect of Stored Red Blood: Results of a Sub-Group Analysis of the Age of Blood Evaluation (ABLE) Trial

2016· article· en· W2599724895 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Johnathan Mack, Susan R. Kahn, Alan Tinmouth, Dean Fergusson, Paul C. Hébert, Jacques Lacroix

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBlood transfusion and management
Établissements canadiensCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalOttawa HospitalMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineHazard ratioProportional hazards modelRandomizationClinical trialRandomized controlled trialConfoundingInternal medicineSurgeryConfidence interval

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract The red blood cell (RBC) storage lesion reflects cumulative damage to stored erythrocytes. Randomized clinical trials have yet to identify clinical consequences associated with prolonged RBC storage, however the majority of these trials have not incorporated dose-response analyses. In one of the subgroup analyses undertaken in the ABLE trial, a potential volume-dependent effect associated with storage was identified1. In this secondary analysis of the ABLE study, we conducted detailed analyses aiming to better characterize whether the number of RBC units administered to patients receiving either fresh or standard-issue blood is associated with mortality in critically-ill adults. We undertook a secondary evaluation of the 2510 patients enrolled in the ABLE trial. This randomized, controlled, clinical trial compared mortality rates and several secondary outcomes in mechanically-ventilated adults, who received either "fresh" RBC units (stored for ≤7 days) or "standard-issue" RBC units (first-in, first-out). Our secondary analysis consisted of comparing short- and long-term hazards of death between fresh and standard arms within pre-specified subgroups of patients that received ≤3 RBC units and those that received >3 units. Additional analyses using subgroups defined by 2-unit, and 1-unit increments were performed. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to model the hazard of death at the specified endpoints, adjusting for possible confounders. We examined interactions between randomization to fresh RBCs and number of RBC units transfused, as a means of establishing a dose-dependent relationship. We also undertook adjusted and unadjusted survival analyses between treatment arms within subgroups. In the subgroup that received ≤3 RBCs, there were 754 patients in the fresh arm and 789 in the standard arm; among patients transfused >3 RBCs, there were 457 in the fresh arm and 430 in the standard arm. When stratified by 2 unit increments, in the fresh and standard arms, respectively, there were 601 and 632 patients given ≤2 units, 279 and 272 given 3-4 units, 108 and 107 given 5-6 units, and 223 and 208 given ≥7 units. Baseline characteristics were comparable between treatment arms within major subgroups, aside from a slightly higher proportion of fresh RBC patients admitted due to trauma in the most transfused subgroups (>3 units: 11.4% of standard, 16.4% of fresh; ≥7 units: 11.5% of standard, 19.3% of fresh) and fewer patients admitted with medical causes in the same subgroups (>3 units: 77.7% of standard, 69.6% of fresh; ≥7 units: 77.9% of standard, 67.7% of fresh). There was significant interaction between fresh RBC unit transfusion and the volume of transfused RBC units on long-term (90 and 180 days) but not short-term (28-day, in-ICU, in-hospital) hazards of death for all subgroup analyses. This observation suggests that the effect of RBC storage differs with different transfusion volumes. In subgroups of ≤3 and >3 units, a trend was observed of increased hazard of death with fresh RBCs in the less-transfused subgroup, and decreased hazard of death with fresh RBCs in the more-transfused subgroup at all endpoints (Figure 1). Similar trends were observed with smaller RBC unit increments. At all endpoints, the hazard of death was higher with fresh RBCs in patients given 3-4 units and, after a threshold of 5 units, the trend reversed: patients given ≥7 fresh units had a lower hazard (Figure 2). Overall survival was not significantly different between treatment arms in any of the subgroups. This secondary analysis suggests a volume-dependent, threshold effect of prolonged red cell storage. Fresh RBCs were associated with a trend of decreased hazard of mortality when more than 5 units were transfused. The findings support current transfusion practice for patients requiring transfusion of <5 RBC units. Further study on the effect of RBC unit storage age should be focused on patients anticipated to require more than 5 RBC transfusions. The ABLE trial was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health (grant #177453) and the Établissement français du sang. Dr. Mack is supported by a Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé 'Resident Physician Health Research Career Training Program' award. 1. Lacroix J, Hébert PC, Fergusson DA, Tinmouth A, Cook DJ, Marshall JC, Clayton L, McIntyre L, Callum J, Turgeon AF, et al. Age of Transfused Blood in Critically Ill Adults. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015;372(15):1410-1418. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,059

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,019
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,004
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,274
Écart entre enseignants0,257 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBloodMême sujetBlood transfusion and managementTravaux en français237 207