Liberal Versus Restrictive Red Blood Cell Transfusion Thresholds in Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: A Randomized, Open Label, Phase III, Noninferiority Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE Evidence regarding red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practices and their impact on hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) outcomes are poorly understood. PATIENTS AND METHODS We performed a noninferiority randomized controlled trial in four different centers that evaluated patients with hematologic malignancies requiring HCT who were randomly assigned to either a restrictive (hemoglobin [Hb] threshold < 70 g/L) or liberal (Hb threshold < 90 g/L) RBC transfusion strategy between day 0 and day 100. The noninferiority margin corresponds to a 12% absolute difference between groups in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT) score relative to baseline. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQOL) measured by FACT-BMT score at day 100. Additional end points were collected: HRQOL by FACT-BMT score at baseline and at days 7, 14, 28, 60, and 100; transplantation-related mortality; length of hospital stay; intensive care unit admissions; acute graft-versus-host disease; Bearman toxicity score; sinusoidal obstruction syndrome; serious infections; WHO Bleeding Scale; transfusion requirements; and reactions to therapy. RESULTS A total of 300 patients were randomly assigned to either restrictive-strategy or liberal-strategy treatment groups between 2011 and 2016 at four Canadian adult HCT centers. After HCT, mean pre-transfusion Hb levels were 70.9 g/L in the restrictive-strategy group and 84.6 g/L in the liberal-strategy group ( P < .0001). The number of RBC units transfused was lower in the restrictive-strategy group than in the liberal-strategy group (mean, 2.73 units [standard deviation, 4.81 units] v 5.02 units [standard deviation, 6.13 units]; P = .0004). After adjusting for transfusion type and baseline FACT-BMT score, the restrictive-strategy group had a higher FACT-BMT score at day 100 (difference of 1.6 points; 95% CI, −2.5 to 5.6 points), which was noninferior compared with that of the liberal-strategy group. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the transfusion strategies. CONCLUSION In patients undergoing HCT, the use of a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy threshold of 70 g/L was as effective as a threshold of 90 g/L and resulted in similar HRQOL and HCT outcomes with fewer transfusions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".