MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2767125336 · doi:10.3310/hta21620

The Age of BLood Evaluation (ABLE) randomised controlled trial: description of the UK-funded arm of the international trial, the UK cost–utility analysis and secondary analyses exploring factors associated with health-related quality of life and health-care costs during the 12-month follow-up

2017· article· en· W2767125336 sur OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Timothy Walsh, Simon Stanworth, Julia Boyd, David Hope, Sue Hemmatapour, Helen Burrows, Helen Campbell, Elena Pizzo, Nicholas Swart, Stephen Morris

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth Technology Assessment · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBlood transfusion and management
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesHealth Technology Assessment ProgrammeNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of SouthamptonFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
Mots-clésMedicineRandomized controlled trialBlood transfusionMechanical ventilationClinical trialPsychological interventionEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: At present, red blood cells (RBCs) are stored for up to 42 days prior to transfusion. The relative effectiveness and safety of different RBC storage times prior to transfusion is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of transfusing fresher RBCs (stored for ≤ 7 days) compared with current standard-aged RBCs in critically ill patients requiring blood transfusions. DESIGN: The international Age of BLood Evaluation (ABLE) trial was a multicentre, randomised, blinded trial undertaken in Canada, the UK, the Netherlands and France. The UK trial was funded to contribute patients to the international trial and undertake a UK-specific health economic evaluation. SETTING: Twenty intensive care units (ICUs) in the UK, as part of 64 international centres. PARTICIPANTS: Critically ill patients aged ≥ 18 years (≥ 16 years in Scotland) expected to require mechanical ventilation for ≥ 48 hours and requiring a first RBC transfusion during the first 7 days in the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: All decisions to transfuse RBCs were made by clinicians. One patient group received exclusively fresh RBCs stored for ≤ 7 days whenever transfusion was required from randomisation until hospital discharge. The other group received standard-issue RBCs throughout their hospital stay. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was 90-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included development of organ dysfunction, new thrombosis, infections and transfusion reactions. The primary economic evaluation was a cost-utility analysis. RESULTS: The international trial took place between March 2009 and October 2014 (UK recruitment took place between January 2012 and October 2014). In total, 1211 patients were assigned to receive fresh blood and 1219 patients to receive standard-aged blood. RBCs were stored for a mean of 6.1 days [standard deviation (SD) ± 4.9 days] in the group allocated to receive fresh blood and 22.0 days (SD ± 8.4 days) in the group allocated to receive standard-aged blood. Patients received a mean of 4.3 RBC units (SD ± 5.2 RBC units) and 4.3 RBC units (SD ± 5.5 RBC units) in the groups receiving fresh blood and standard-aged blood, respectively. At 90 days, 37.0% of patients in the group allocated to receive fresh blood and 35.3% of patients in the group allocated to receive standard-aged blood had died {absolute risk difference 1.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.1% to 5.5%]}. There were no between-group differences in any secondary outcomes. The UK cohort comprised 359 patients randomised and followed up for 12 months for the cost-utility analysis. UK patients had similar characteristics and outcomes to the international cohort. Mean total costs per patient were £32,346 (95% CI £29,306 to £35,385) in the group allocated to receive fresh blood and £33,353 (95% CI £29,729 to £36,978) in the group allocated to receive standard-aged blood. Approximately 85% of the total costs were incurred during the index hospital admission. There were no significant cost differences between the two groups [mean incremental costs for those receiving fresh vs. standard-aged blood: -£231 (95% CI -£4876 to £4415)], nor were there significant differences in outcomes (mean difference in quality-adjusted life-years -0.010, 95% CI -0.078 to 0.057). LIMITATIONS: Adverse effects from the exclusive use of older RBCs compared with standard or fresh RBCs cannot be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: The use of RBCs aged ≤ 7 days confers no clinical or economic benefit in critically ill patients compared with standard-aged RBCs. FUTURE WORK: Future studies should address the safety of RBCs near the end of the current permitted storage age. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN44878718. FUNDING: ; Vol. 21, No. 62. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The international ABLE trial was also supported by peer-reviewed grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (177453), Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé (24460), the French Ministry of Health Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (12.07, 2011) and by funding from Établissement Français du Sang and Sanquin Blood Supply.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,047
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,985

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,186
Tête enseignante GPT0,413
Écart entre enseignants0,227 · 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 tête enseignante, 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

Citations24
Publié2017
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHealth Technology AssessmentMême sujetBlood transfusion and managementTravaux en français237 207