Restricting transfusion in upper GI bleeding

July 14, 2013 by  
Filed under Acute Med, All Updates, ICU, Resus

Improved outcomes and reduced complications were associated with a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Note that patients with “massive exsanguinating bleeding” were excluded from the study so this shouldn’t be extrapolated to such presentations.

The benefit seemed to be most marked in patients with variceal haemorrhage, but not those with the most severe Child-Pugh class. In portal hypertensive-related bleeding, transfusion may increase portal pressure and exacerbate bleeding.

The patients were ‘scoped within 6 hours, and less than 10% received FFP or platelets. Both groups averaged over 5 litres of crystalloid in the first 72 hours.

Transfusion Strategies for Acute Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding
N Engl J Med. 2013 Jan 3;368(1):11-21


BACKGROUND: The hemoglobin threshold for transfusion of red cells in patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding is controversial. We compared the efficacy and safety of a restrictive transfusion strategy with those of a liberal transfusion strategy.

METHODS: We enrolled 921 patients with severe acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and randomly assigned 461 of them to a restrictive strategy (transfusion when the hemoglobin level fell below 7 g per deciliter) and 460 to a liberal strategy (transfusion when the hemoglobin fell below 9 g per deciliter). Randomization was stratified according to the presence or absence of liver cirrhosis.

RESULTS: A total of 225 patients assigned to the restrictive strategy (51%), as compared with 61 assigned to the liberal strategy (14%), did not receive transfusions (P<0.001) [corrected].The probability of survival at 6 weeks was higher in the restrictive-strategy group than in the liberal-strategy group (95% vs. 91%; hazard ratio for death with restrictive strategy, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.92; P=0.02). Further bleeding occurred in 10% of the patients in the restrictive-strategy group as compared with 16% of the patients in the liberal-strategy group (P=0.01), and adverse events occurred in 40% as compared with 48% (P=0.02). The probability of survival was slightly higher with the restrictive strategy than with the liberal strategy in the subgroup of patients who had bleeding associated with a peptic ulcer (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.26 to 1.25) and was significantly higher in the subgroup of patients with cirrhosis and Child-Pugh class A or B disease (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.85), but not in those with cirrhosis and Child-Pugh class C disease (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.37). Within the first 5 days, the portal-pressure gradient increased significantly in patients assigned to the liberal strategy (P=0.03) but not in those assigned to the restrictive strategy.

CONCLUSIONS: As compared with a liberal transfusion strategy, a restrictive strategy significantly improved outcomes in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. (Funded by Fundació Investigació Sant Pau; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00414713.).

Comments

Comments are closed.