MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A Randomized Clinical Trial of Liberal Versus Restrictive Transfusion Strategy Evaluating Long Term Survival and Cause of Death: Results from the FOCUS Trial

2014· article· en· W876997243 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeffrey L. Carson, Frederick E. Sieber, Donald R. Hoover, Helaine Noveck, Bernard Chaitman, Lauren A Beaupré, William Macaulay, George Rhoads, Lee A. Fleisher, Donald Richard Cook, David Sanders, Khwaja J. Zakriya, Barbara Paris, Aleksandra Zagorin, Jay Magaziner

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood transfusionRandomized controlled trialDiabetes mellitusStroke (engine)Heart failureCoronary artery diseaseDiseaseInternal medicineIntensive care medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction There are a large number of randomized clinical trials comparing short-term mortality between liberal and restrictive transfusion strategies. However, transfusion is thought to have long-term consequences related to alteration of immune function. These effects have been hypothesized to increase the risk of subsequent infections and recurrence of cancer. Thus, it is possible that transfusion will increase the risk of long-term mortality by increasing the deaths due to infections and recurrent cancer. Alternatively, more liberal transfusion might reduce cardiac complications by increasing oxygen to vulnerable myocardium and reduce deaths from cardiovascular disease. We hypothesized that liberal transfusion would affect cause specific mortality and might affect all-cause mortality, depending on the predominant impact of transfusion. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of the FOCUS trial that randomly allocated patients undergoing hip fracture repair with postoperative hemoglobin concentrations below 10 g/dL within 3 days of surgery. Patients were eligible for the trial if they had underlying cardiovascular disease (coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, stroke, peripheral vascular disease) or cardiovascular risk factors (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, tobacco use, or renal insufficiency). We randomly allocated patients to liberal transfusion where patients received blood transfusion to maintain hemoglobin 10 g/dL or greater, or restrictive transfusion where patients received blood transfusion when hemoglobin level was less than 8 g/dL or for symptoms. Long-term mortality was determined by linking the study subjects to national death registries in US and Canada. We compared survival time between the two transfusion treatment strategies using the unadjusted log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard models. The underlying cause of death was identified by the national death registries and grouped into seven categories: cardiovascular disease, cancer, infection, stroke, dementia, pulmonary, and other. Results There were 1007 subjects randomly allocated to the liberal transfusion strategy and 1009 to the restrictive transfusion strategy. The baseline clinical status was similar between the two groups; mean age of the study population was 81.6 years (range, 51 to 103). The liberal transfusion group were transfused a total of 1866 units and restrictive transfusion group 652 units. We established long-term survival for 2002 (99.3%) of the study population. The median follow-up was 3.1 years (interquartile range, 2.4 to 4.1 years) and there were 841 (42.0%) deaths. There was no difference in the long-term mortality between the liberal transfusion strategy (N=432 deaths) and restrictive transfusion strategy (N= 409 deaths); hazard ratio =1.09; 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.25 (Figure). The results were consistent across all subgroups including demographics and multiple co-morbidities. There was also no difference in the underlying cause of death between the transfusion strategies (p=0.99) (Table); Cardiovascular disease (liberal-32.6%, restrictive-33.5%), Cancer (liberal-12.5%, restrictive-12.0%), Infection (liberal-9.5%, restrictive 9.0%). Conclusions Liberal transfusion of 10 g/dL did not reduce or increase long-term mortality compared to restrictive transfusion strategy using an 8 g/dL threshold or symptoms in a high risk group of elderly patients with underlying cardiovascular disease or risk factors. The underlying causes of death were similar in both arms of the trial and liberal transfusion did not appear to increase risk of death from infection or cancer or reduce the risk of death from cardiovascular disease. These results do not support the hypotheses that transfusion leads to long-term immunosuppression that is severe enough to influence mortality or cause of death. Our findings suggest that clinicians should primarily consider short-term effects of transfusion when deciding whom to transfuse. Table Total N (%) LiberalN (%) Restrictive N (%) Cardiovascular Disease 278 (33.1) 141 (32.6) 137 (33.5) Cancer 103 (12.2) 54 (12.5) 49 (12.0) Infection 78 (9.3) 41 (9.5) 37 (9.0) Stroke 57 (6.8) 27 (6.3) 30 (7.3) Dementia 108 (12.8) 56 (13.0) 52 (12.7) Pulmonary 58 (6.9) 29 (6.7) 29 (7.1) Other 147 (17.5) 79 (18.3) 68 (16.6) Unknown 12 (1.4) 5 (1.2) 7 (1.7) Totals 841 432 409 Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Magaziner: Ammonett : Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Eli Lilly: Consultancy; American Orthopedic Association: Consultancy.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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