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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Transfusion thresholds for guiding red blood cell transfusion.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion for cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2019Pooled it
- Positive impact of retrograde autologous priming in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a randomized clinical trial.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2018Trial
- Hemoglobin levels and clinical outcomes after extracorporeal circulation auxiliary to open heart surgery: a retrospective cohort study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2023Article
- Cost-effectiveness of therapeutics for COVID-19 patients: a rapid review and economic analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2023Review
- 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 · 2022Article
- To RAP or Not to RAP: A Retrospective Comparison of the Effects of Retrograde Autologous Priming.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2021Article
- Patient blood management interventions do not lead to important clinical benefits or cost-effectiveness for major surgery: a network meta-analysis.British journal of anaesthesia · 2021Review
- Restrictive transfusion practice in cardiac surgery patients is safe, but what transfusion threshold is safe for my patient?European heart journal · 2019Article
- Supplemental findings from the National Blood Collection and Utilization Surveys, 2013 and 2015.Transfusion · 2017Article
- Anemia and blood transfusion in the critically ill patient with cardiovascular disease.Critical care (London, England) · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.