Skip to main content

GI Bleeds: Withholding Transfusions Boosts Survival


Withholding transfusions until hemoglobin levels are lower than 7%, rather than 9%, improves overall survival by 45% in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, according to a study published in the January 3 issue of theNew England Journal of Medicine.
"[This study] provides long-awaited evidence to guide practice and justify current recommendations for the management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding," asserts Loren Laine, MD, from the Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven and the VA Connecticut Healthcare System in West Haven, in anaccompanying editorial.
Although prior meta-analyses have largely excluded the potential for benefit with a liberal transfusion strategy, only 1% or less of included patients had acute GI bleeds, Dr. Laine writes.
To examine the potential benefit of a more narrow approach, Càndid Villanueva, MD, from the Gastrointestinal Bleeding Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital de Sant Pau, Autonomous University, and Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas, Barcelona, Spain, and colleagues consecutively enrolled 921 patients presenting with acute GI bleeds, assigning them to receive red blood cell transfusions according to a restrictive (hemoglobin level, <7 g/dL) or liberal (hemoglobin level, <9 g/dL) strategy. Baseline hemoglobin levels were comparable for the 2 groups of patients (9.6 ± 2.2 g/dL and 9.4 ± 2.4 g/dL, respectively; P = .45).
Results revealed that a restrictive approach to transfusions led to an overall 55% reduction in 45-day mortality rate (95% vs 91%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 33% - 92%; P = .02), which was primarily attributed to fewer deaths from bleeding that could not be successfully controlled (3 [0.7%] patients vs 14 [3.1%] patients; P = .01).
Other benefits included fewer transfusions (49% vs 86%; P < .001), a decreased likelihood of further bleeding (10% vs 16%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 - 0.91; P = .01), and fewer adverse events overall (40% vs 48%; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56 - 0.95; P = .02).
Subgroup Analyses
Subgroup analyses revealed that there was a 43% decrease in mortality among patients with cirrhosis (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.30 - 1.08; P = .08), and that improved survival rate was particularly driven by those with Child–Pugh class A or B disease (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.11 - 0.85; P = .02). No such benefit was observed among those with more severe class C disease (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.45 - 2.37; P = .91).
A similar pattern was observed with respect to the risk for further bleeding among patients with cirrhosis in general (12% vs 22%; HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27 - 0.90; P = .02), those with Child–Pugh class A or B disease (11% vs 21%; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.27 - 0.94; P = .04), and patients with class C disease (15% vs 28%; HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.15 - 1.95; P = .33).
Although concerns have been raised regarding the risk for rebound increases in portal pressure and related bleeding in patients with cirrhosis who have portal hypertension, patients in the restrictive strategy group experienced no change in the portal pressure gradient from baseline to days 2 or 3, whereas a significant increase was observed among those in the liberal strategy group (20.5 ± 3.1 mm Hg to 21.4 ± 4.3 mm Hg; P = .03).
Patients with cirrhosis who were assigned to the restrictive strategy group were less likely overall to require balloon tamponade or a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (2% vs 8% [ P = .03] and 4% vs 11% [ P = .04]), respectively.
Among patients with variceal and peptic ulcer–related bleeding, the restrictive transfusion strategy showed a trend toward improved survival rates relative to the liberal approach (HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.27 -1.27; P = .18] and HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.26 - 1.25; P = .26], respectively), as well as toward the likelihood of further bleeding (11% vs 22% [HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.23 - 0.99; P = .05] and 10% vs 16% [HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.37 - 1.07; P = .09]).
"Largely on the basis of results from studies in animals, a restrictive transfusion strategy is commonly used for patients with variceal bleeding to prevent rebound increases in portal pressure," Dr. Laine writes, noting that although the study authors suggest that the restrictive transfusion strategy's main benefit was observed among patients with rather than without portal hypertension, no formal test of interaction was provided.
Furthermore, hazard ratios for further bleeding and for death were similar in the overall group and in subgroups with cirrhosis, esophageal varices, or peptic ulcer, with closely overlapping confidence intervals, Dr. Laine points out.
However, the study shows merit in it that it reveals benefits for a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding that exceeds that observed in other populations, Dr. Laine suggests, noting the importance of bleeding and mortality as key outcomes.
"[The study] provides important evidence to guide clinical practice," Dr. Laine concludes, advising that most patients with upper GI bleeding, with or without portal hypertension, have blood transfusions withheld until their hemoglobin levels drop below 7 g/dL.
The study was funded in part by the Fundació Investigació Sant Pau. One coauthor reports receiving consulting fees from Sequana Medical. The other authors and the editorialist have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...
Post a Comment
Read more

Contact Precautions May Have Unintended Consequences

Contact precautions, including gloves, gowns, and isolated rooms, have helped stem the transmission of hospital pathogens but have also had some negative consequences, according to findings from a new study. Healthcare worker (HCWs) visited patients on contact precautions less frequently than other patients and spent less time with those patients when they did visit, report Daniel J. Morgan, MD, from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and the Veterans Affairs (VA) Maryland Health Care System, Baltimore, and colleagues. Moreover, patients on contact precautions also received fewer outside visitors. "Less contact with HCWs suggests that other unintended consequences of contact precautions still exist," Dr. Morgan and coauthors write. "The resulting decrease in HCW contact may lead to increased adverse events and a lower quality of patient care due to less consistent patient monitoring and poorer adherence to standard adverse event prevention methods (such...
Post a Comment
Read more