Trial reportBMC cardiovascular disorders2021
Evaluation of a novel Cardiac Peri-Operative Transfusion Trigger Scoring system in patients with coronary artery disease.
Trial report in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perioperative Transfusion Trigger Score Versus Restrictive Transfusion in Older Non-Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026Trial
- Development and evaluation of a dynamic nomogram model for intraoperative blood transfusion decision-making.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA simple and accurate scoring system to guide perioperative blood transfusion in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing cardiac surgery is lacking. The trigger point for blood transfusions for these patients may be different from existing transfusion guidelines. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a new scoring strategy for use in guiding transfusion decisions in patients with CAD.
methodsA multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted at three third-level grade-A hospitals from January 2015 to May 2018. Data of 254 patients in a Cardiac Peri-Operative Transfusion Trigger Score (cPOTTS) group and 246 patients in a group receiving conventional evaluation of the need for transfusion (conventional group) were analysed. The requirements for transfusion and the per capita consumption of red blood cells (RBCs) were compared between groups.
resultsBaseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable. Logistic regression analyses revealed no significant differences between the two groups in primary outcomes (1-year mortality and perioperative ischemic cardiac events), secondary outcomes (shock, infections, and renal impairment), ICU admission, and ICU stay duration. However, patients in the cPOTTS group had significantly shorter hospital stays, lower hospital costs, lower utilization rate and lower per capita consumption of transfused RBCs than controls. Stratified analyses revealed no significant differences between groups in associations between baseline characteristics and perioperative ischemic cardiac events, except for hemofiltration or dialysis and NYHA class in I.
conclusionsThis novel scoring system offered a practical and straightforward guideline of perioperative blood transfusion in patients with CAD. Trial registration chiCTR1800016561(2017/7/19).
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.