MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417014835 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-4921

Perioperative anemia and transfusion thresholds in vascular surgery procedures – a systematic review

2025· article· en· W4417014835 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Xiang, Allen Li, Ali Eshaghpour, Riley Dow, Yasmin Meghdadi, David Gou, Jeremy Steen, Mark Crowther

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerioperativeVascular surgeryAnemiaBlood managementPopulationAdverse effectBlood transfusionRandomized controlled trialCohort

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Anemia is a common condition, with an estimated 1.92 billion cases, or 24.3% of the worldwide population as of 2021, and has been shown to be a predictor of adverse surgical outcomes in a range of patient populations and procedures. Anemia is often treated with blood transfusions perioperatively, but potential benefits must be balanced against risks associated with transfusion including but not limited to cost, lack of availability, infectious complications and transfusion reactions. High quality studies in many populations have demonstrated noninferior outcomes in patients transfused with a restrictive threshold (hemoglobin (Hb) level < 7-8g/dL), but these results many not be applicable to vascular surgery patients. These patients tend to have a high rate of severe underlying cardiovascular disease and oftentimes present with critical limb ischemia which may be particularly sensitive to the tissue hypoxia potentially associated with lower hemoglobin thresholds. Objective We performed a systematic review and qualitative analysis to determine the relative risks and benefits of a restrictive (target Hb < 7-8g/dL) versus liberal (target Hb 9-10g/dL or higher) transfusion threshold in patients undergoing major vascular surgical procedures. Methods We searched Ovid Medline, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and the reference lists of eligible publications for relevant studies published from inception until July 25th, 2025. Studies were screened at abstract and full-text level independently and in duplicate. Any cohort study or randomized controlled trial (RCT) examining either restrictive or liberal transfusion strategies in patients undergoing major vascular procedures were included. Baseline characteristics, surgical procedure details, and transfusion strategies were extracted. Efficacy outcomes included major cardiovascular adverse events (MACEs), surgical complications, mortality, and major ischemic events. Secondary outcomes included documented transfusion reactions as defined by primary authors. Results A total of 4343 studies were identified in our initial search strategy, of which 50 had their full texts reviewed for eligibility. 12 eligible studies were included with a total of 29,707 patients. The most common study type was retrospective cohort (n = 7), followed by RCTs (n = 3) and prospective cohort studies (n = 2). The most common procedures included endovascular or open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (n = 8), infrainguinal bypass (n = 6), and lower limb amputations (n = 5). Included studies had variable definitions for restrictive transfusion threshold ranging from 7-9 g/dL. Efficacy and safety outcomes were largely dependent on procedure type. Studies which included major, high-risk vascular procedures such as open AAA repair and lower limb amputation trended towards higher rates of mortality, procedural complications, and MACE in the restrictive transfusion groups, though these findings were of variable statistical significance. Studies examining lower-risk procedures including infrainguinal bypass, carotid endarterectomy, and endovascular aneurysm repair had variable results. Multiple studies, including one RCT and two cohort studies noted lower rates of MACE and 30-day mortality in patients transfused with a restrictive strategy, albeit with similarly variable levels of statistical significance. Two other cohort studies in this group noted no differences in patient outcomes with a restrictive strategy. Lastly, pRBCs were noted to be transfused at a higher rate in the liberal group across the included studies, though there was insufficient data on the rates of transfusion reactions between the two strategies. Meta-analysis of the data could not be performed due to significant heterogeneity in the design of the included studies. Conclusions Overall, studies examining higher-risk procedure such as open AAA repairs and lower limb amputations noted trend towards lower MACE, surgical complications, and mortality in patients receiving a liberal transfusion threshold (Hb > 9g/dL). In lower-risk vascular surgical procedures, MACE, surgical complications, and mortality appeared non inferior or superior with a restrictive transfusion threshold. Large randomized trials examining a variety of vascular surgery procedures with standardized hemoglobin thresholds are necessary to establish more conclusive benefits or harms of a restrictive or liberal transfusion strategy in patients undergoing vascular surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.007
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicBlood transfusion and management→French-language works237,207→