0
Clinical Investigations in Critical Care |

Do Blood Transfusions Improve Outcomes Related to Mechanical Ventilation?*

Paul C. Hébert, MD, MHSc; Morris A. Blajchman, MD; Deborah J. Cook, MD, FCCP, MSc(Epid); Elizabeth Yetisir, MSc; George Wells, MSc, PhD; John Marshall, MD; Irwin Schweitzer, MSc; the Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care Investigators for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group
Author and Funding Information

Affiliations: *From the Critical Care Programs (Dr. Hébert) and the Clinical Epidemiology Unit (Dr. Wells, Mr. Schweitzer, Ms. Yetisir), University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario; the University of Toronto (Dr. Marshall), Toronto, Ontario; and the Departments of Pathology (Dr. Blajchman) and Medicine and Epidemiology (Dr. Cook), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.,  A list of other study investigators is given in the Appendix.

Correspondence to: Paul C. Hébert, MD, MHSc(Epid), Department of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital, General Site, 501 Smyth Rd, Box 201, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada; e-mail: phebert@ottawahospital.on.ca



Chest. 2001;119(6):1850-1857. doi:10.1378/chest.119.6.1850
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background: Correcting the decrease in oxygen delivery from anemia using allogeneic RBC transfusions has been hypothesized to help with increased oxygen demands during weaning from mechanical ventilation. However, it is also possible that transfusions hinder the process because RBCs may not be able to adequately increase oxygen delivery. In this study, we determined whether a liberal RBC transfusion strategy improved outcomes related to mechanical ventilation.

Methods: Seven hundred thirteen patients receiving mechanical ventilation, representing a subgroup of patients from a larger trial, were randomized to either a restrictive transfusion strategy, receiving allogeneic RBC transfusions at a hemoglobin concentration of 7.0 g/dL (and maintained between 7.0 g/dL and to 9.0 g/dL), or to a liberal transfusion strategy, receiving RBCs at 10.0 g/dL (and maintained between 10.0 g/dL and 12.0 g/dL). The larger trial was designed to evaluate transfusion practice rather than weaning per se.

Results: Baseline characteristics in the restrictive-strategy group (n = 357) and the liberal-strategy group (n = 356) were comparable. The average durations of mechanical ventilation were 8.3 ± 8.1 days and 8.3 ± 8.1 days (95% confidence interval [CI] around difference,− 0.79 to 1.68; p = 0.48), while ventilator-free days were 17.5 ± 10.9 days and 16.1 ± 11.4 days (95% CI around difference,− 3.07 to 0.21; p = 0.09) in the restrictive-strategy group vs the liberal-strategy group, respectively. Eighty-two percent of the patients in the restrictive-strategy group were considered successfully weaned and extubated for at least 24 h, compared to 78% for the liberal-strategy group (p = 0.19). The relative risk (RR) of extubation success in the restrictive-strategy group compared to the liberal-strategy group, adjusted for the confounding effects of age, APACHE (acute physiology and chronic health evaluation) II score, and comorbid illness, was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.26; p = 0.43). The adjusted RR of extubation success associated with restrictive transfusion in the 219 patients who received mechanical ventilation for> 7 days was 1.1 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.45; p = 0.47).

Conclusion: In this study, there was no evidence that a liberal RBC transfusion strategy decreased the duration of mechanical ventilation in a heterogeneous population of critically ill patients.

Figures in this Article

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Figures

Tables

References

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Sign In to Access Full Content

MEMBER & INDIVIDUAL SUBSCRIBER

Want Access?

NEW TO CHEST?

Become a CHEST member and receive a FREE subscription as a benefit of membership.

Individuals can purchase this article on ScienceDirect.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal.

Individuals can purchase a subscription to the journal or buy individual articles.

Learn more about membership or Purchase a Full Subscription.

INSTITUTIONAL ACCESS

Institutional access is now available through ScienceDirect and can be purchased at myelsevier.com.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Find Similar Articles
CHEST Journal Articles
PubMed Articles
  • CHEST Journal
    Print ISSN: 0012-3692
    Online ISSN: 1931-3543