MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2990490360 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-122269

Impact of Iron Supplementation on Patient Outcomes in Women Undergoing Gynecological Procedures: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

2019· article· en· W2990490360 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Emily Sirotich, Erin Jamula, Andrea Wang, Donald M. Arnold, Michelle P. Zeller

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
Établissements canadiensCanadian Blood ServicesMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisPerioperativeBlood transfusionAnemiaRelative riskCochrane LibraryPlaceboMEDLINESurgeryInternal medicineConfidence interval

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background. Perioperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is associated with poor patient outcomes. RBC transfusion rates have been decreasing across different types of surgeries as a results of implementing Patient Blood Management (PBM) strategies; while RBC transfusion rates in gynecologic surgeries have remained static. Women are at increased risk of anemia, specifically iron deficiency anemia from gynecologic blood loss putting them at increased risk of requiring perioperative RBC transfusion. PBM encourages preoperative iron supplementation to optimize patients' hemoglobin (Hb) levels; however, evidence specific to gynecological procedures is lacking. This systematic review was conducted to address the question: Does the use of iron supplementation during the perioperative period impact patient outcomes in women undergoing gynecological procedures when compared to no treatment, placebo, or standard of care? Methods. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched up to July 2019. Additional records were identified through searching theses, conference proceedings, trials, and grey literature. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an intervention group provided with iron supplementation perioperatively to women undergoing gynecological procedures with a comparator were included. Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, extracted data, and evaluated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Data were pooled using the random-effects (DerSimonian and Laird) method of meta-analysis. Results. A total of eleven RCTs met inclusion criteria. Two RCTs were then excluded; one RCT compared iron supplementation to no intervention but subset data for gynecology patients was unavailable and the full text of another RCT was unavailable. Seven RCTs (n=447) were amenable to meta-analysis; however iron supplementation was used in both treatment arms: four compared iron with erythropoietin stimulating agents (ESA) to iron alone and three compared iron with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue/agonist to iron alone. Six studies were judged to be overall low risk of bias and one to be at high risk of bias. RBC Transfusions: There was a statistically significant reduction in RBC transfusions during the perioperative period when iron was used in combination with a blood optimization compound (BOC) compared to iron alone (RR 0.33; 95%CI 0.16 to 0.70; p=0.003) (Figure 1). Preoperative Hb Level: Women who had taken a BOC plus iron had a median preoperative Hb level of 12.87g/dl [95% CI 11.13, 14.61 g/dl]), which was significantly higher (Δ1.16 g/dl; 95% CI 1.01, 1.31g/dl; p<0.00001) than those who took oral iron supplements alone. Postoperative Hb Level: Among 336 women in six RCTs, women who had taken a BOC in addition to iron had a postoperative Hb of 11.53g/dl (95% CI 6.92 g/dl, 16.14g/dl). This was significantly higher (Δ0.96 g/dl; 95% CI 0.45 g/dl, 1.47 g/dl; p<0.00001) than those who took iron supplements alone. Adverse Events (AEs): Five studies including 289 participants reported the incidence of AEs. The addition of a BOC did not have a statistically significant effect on the occurrence of AEs (RR 0.98; 95%CI 0.83, 1.17; p=0.85). One RCT with available data compared iron supplementation to placebo. Meta-analysis was not possible; however, the study found a significant increase in postoperative Hb and decrease in RBC transfusions in patients receiving iron supplementation compared to placebo. Conclusion. Perioperative use of iron in combination with a BOC in women undergoing gynecological procedures may reduce the need for perioperative RBC transfusions and improve preoperative Hb levels with high certainty of evidence. There was very low certainty of evidence for the impact of iron plus BOC on postoperative Hb levels and the number of AEs. The results of this systematic review suggest that the use of perioperative iron with BOC may improve patient outcomes. Lack of RCTs comparing iron to placebo is a limitation. More studies are needed to address the role of perioperative iron supplementation for gynecological procedures, including evaluating different routes of administration. Analysis of existing observational studies may offer additional data to supplement the results of this meta-analysis. Disclosures Arnold: Rigel: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Principia: Consultancy. Zeller:Pfizer: Other: Advisory Board; Canadian Blood Services: Consultancy; Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care: Consultancy.

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)0,016
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Méta-analyse · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,022
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,087

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0160,044
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0220,031
Bibliométrie0,0070,008
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

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 Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,350
Écart entre enseignants0,310 · 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'étudeMéta-analyse
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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

En bref

Citations1
Publié2019
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetCardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes→Travaux en français237 207→