Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27481621›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2016

Are lower levels of red blood cell transfusion more cost-effective than liberal levels after cardiac surgery? Findings from the TITRe2 randomised controlled trial.

E A Stokes, S Wordsworth, D Bargo, K Pike, C A Rogers, R C M Brierley, G D Angelini, G J Murphy, B C Reeves, TITRe2 Investigators

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Transfusion thresholds for guiding red blood cell transfusion.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Remdesivir for the Treatment of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 in England and Wales.Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

E A StokesNuffield Department of Population Health, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
S WordsworthNuffield Department of Population Health, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
D BargoNuffield Department of Population Health, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Eli Lilly and Company Limited, Lilly House, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK.
K PikeClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
C A RogersClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
R C M BrierleyClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
G D AngeliniBristol Heart Institute, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
G J MurphyDepartment of Cardiovascular Sciences and NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Unit in Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
B C ReevesClinical Trials and Evaluation Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
TITRe2 Investigators

Funding

British Heart Foundation CH/12/1/29419British Heart Foundation CH/92027Department of Health 06/402/94
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the incremental cost and cost-effectiveness of a restrictive versus a liberal red blood cell transfusion threshold after cardiac surgery.

designA within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis with a 3-month time horizon, based on a multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services in the UK.

setting17 specialist cardiac surgery centres in UK NHS hospitals.

participants2003 patients aged >16 years undergoing non-emergency cardiac surgery with a postoperative haemoglobin of <9 g/dL.

interventionsRestrictive (transfuse if haemoglobin <7.5 g/dL) or liberal (transfuse if haemoglobin <9 g/dL) threshold during hospitalisation after surgery.

main outcome measuresHealth-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-3L to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).

resultsThe total costs from surgery up to 3 months were £17 945 and £18 127 in the restrictive and liberal groups (mean difference is -£182, 95% CI -£1108 to £744). The cost difference was largely attributable to the difference in the cost of red blood cells. Mean QALYs to 3 months were 0.18 in both groups (restrictive minus liberal difference is 0.0004, 95% CI -0.0037 to 0.0045). The point estimate for the base-case cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that the restrictive group was slightly more effective and slightly less costly than the liberal group and, therefore, cost-effective. However, there is great uncertainty around these results partly due to the negligible differences in QALYs gained.

conclusionsWe conclude that there is no clear difference in the cost-effectiveness of restrictive and liberal thresholds for red blood cell transfusion after cardiac surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN70923932; Results.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisErythrocyte TransfusionHospital CostsQuality-Adjusted Life YearsAgedAnemiaCardiac Surgical ProceduresErythrocytesFemaleHemoglobinsHospitalizationHumansMalePostoperative ComplicationsQuality of LifeState MedicineHemoglobinsblood transfusioncost-effectiveness

Identifiers

PMID27481621
PMCPMC4985876

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.