Low versus high haemoglobin concentration threshold for blood transfusion for preventing morbidity and mortality in very low birthweight infants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".