The efficacy of intravenous iron for treatment of anemia before cardiac surgery: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preoperative anemia is common in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with various etiologies, among which iron deficiency is the leading cause. However, the benefit of intravenous (IV) iron for the treatment of anemia before cardiac surgery is uncertain. This updated meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of IV iron in adult cardiac surgery patients with preoperative anemia. METHODS: This review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and the strength of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria. Trial sequential analysis was performed on the primary outcome (transfusion rate) to confirm whether firm evidence was reached. RESULTS: Six RCTs (936 patients) and 5 observational studies (1350 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The IV iron group and the control group were comparable in terms of transfusion rate [55.1% vs 60.9%, risk ratio (RR) = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-1.03, P = 0.13, low quality]. There were no significant differences in units transfused per patient, ICU stay and hospital length of stay between the two groups. And pooled data showed a benefit of IV iron compared to the control group on mortality (2.76% vs 3.75%, RR = 0.58, 95% CI 0.36-0.95, P = 0.03, moderate quality) and no mortality reduction existed when including only RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggested that IV iron treatment for patients with anemia before cardiac surgery did not reduce the transfusion requirement (low quality), but it was associated with decreased mortality (moderate quality). More large-scale, high-quality randomized clinical trials are warranted to confirm or refute our findings. PROSPERO registry reference: CRD42022331875.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".