Author
Listed:
- Peng Wang
- Xing Wang
- Haidong Deng
- Linjie Li
- Weelic Chong
- Yang Hai
- Yu Zhang
Abstract
Background: To assess the efficacy and safety of restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion thresholds in very low birth weight infants. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database without any language restrictions. The last search was conducted in August 15, 2020. All randomized controlled trials comparing the use of restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion thresholds in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants were selected. Pooled risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous variable with 95% confidence intervals were assessed by a random-effects model. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Results: Overall, this meta-analysis included 6 randomized controlled trials comprising 3,483 participants. Restrictive transfusion does not increase the risk of all-cause mortality (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.17; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence), and does not increase the composite outcome of death or neurodevelopmental impairment (RR, 1.01, 95% CI, 0.93–1.09; I2 = 7%; high-quality evidence) or other serious adverse events. Results were similar in subgroup analyses of all-cause mortality by weight of infants, gestational age, male infants, and transfusion volume. Conclusions: In very low birth weight infants, a restrictive threshold for red blood cell transfusion was not associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality, in either short term or long term.
Suggested Citation
Peng Wang & Xing Wang & Haidong Deng & Linjie Li & Weelic Chong & Yang Hai & Yu Zhang, 2021.
"Restrictive versus liberal transfusion thresholds in very low birth weight infants: A systematic review with meta-analysis,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(8), pages 1-14, August.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0256810
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256810
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0256810. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.