Low versus high haemoglobin concentration threshold for blood transfusion for preventing morbidity and mortality in very low birthweight infants
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Infants of very low birthweight frequently receive red blood cell transfusions during their primary hospital stay. Generally, this is guided by predetermined haemoglobin or haematocrit thresholds according to a protocol or as prompted by clinical situations, including critical illness or surgery. Recommendations advocate maintaining higher thresholds in the early weeks when the risk of major morbidity is highest, while permitting lower thresholds after this time. In truth, clinicians worry about the potential effect of chronic anaemia on neurodevelopmental outcomes, as well as the risk of transfusion-related complications in the immature host. Clinical trials have reflected this practice by comparing haemoglobin levels adjusted for critical illness, comparing transfusion algorithms that use fixed differences between haemoglobin thresholds, with both thresholds progressively lowered across postnatal age. This is an update of a review first published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of lower (restrictive) compared with higher (liberal) haemoglobin thresholds for transfusion, with or without adjustment for age and critical illness with either fixed or variable transfusion volume, on mortality or later neurodevelopmental outcomes assessed in later infancy at approximately two years postmenstrual age, or the number of transfusions in very low birthweight infants. SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted in January 2024 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, and trial registries. We searched the reference lists of related systematic reviews and trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of lower or restrictive haemoglobin/haematocrit thresholds compared with liberal or higher haemoglobin/haematocrit thresholds for transfusion in low birthweight infants within three days of birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our main outcomes were a combined outcome of death or neurodevelopmental impairment, all-cause mortality, and the number of transfusions per infant. We expressed our results using mean difference (MD), standardised mean difference (SMD), risk ratio (RR), and risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: = 84%; 6 studies, 3451 infants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The trials comparing lower or restrictive versus higher or liberal haemoglobin thresholds for transfusion show little to no difference in important outcomes at hospital discharge and at the time of later neurodevelopmental follow-up. The use of restrictive, as compared to liberal, haemoglobin or haematocrit transfusion thresholds in these trials in infants of very low birthweight results in modest reductions in transfusion exposure and haemoglobin levels. The safety of haemoglobin levels below these lower limits has not been evaluated and should only be considered in the context of randomised controlled trials.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,030 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».