Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39382241›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2024

Restrictive vs Liberal Transfusion Strategy in Patients With Acute Brain Injury: The TRAIN Randomized Clinical Trial.

Fabio Silvio Taccone, Carla Bittencourt Rynkowski, Kirsten Møller, Piet Lormans, Manuel Quintana-Díaz, Anselmo Caricato, Marco Antonio Cardoso Ferreira, Rafael Badenes, Pedro Kurtz, Christian Baastrup Søndergaard and 19 more

Erratum issued Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT02968654 (Transfusion Strategies in Acute Brain Injured Patients. A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Study.), which is not on this map. Cited by 88 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 8 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.

NCT02968654 nacompletednot on this map

Transfusion Strategies in Acute Brain Injured Patients. A Prospective Multicenter Randomized Study.

TypeinterventionalSponsorErasme University HospitalRan2016 to 2023Enrolled850ConditionsAcute Brain Injury, Blood TransfusionArmsRestrictive Transfusion Strategy, Liberal Transfusion Strategy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

88 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. [Interpretation of the 2025Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

29 authors.

Fabio Silvio TacconeDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Carla Bittencourt RynkowskiIntensive Care Unit, Cristo Redentor Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Kirsten MøllerDepartment of Neuroanaesthesiology and Neurosurgery, Neuroscience Centre, Copenhagen University, Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Piet LormansDepartment of Intensive Care, AZ Delta, Roeselaere, Belgium.
Manuel Quintana-DíazDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Hospital Universitario de La Paz, Madrid, Spain.
Anselmo CaricatoInstitute of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Catholic University School of Medicine, Rome, Italy.
Marco Antonio Cardoso FerreiraIntensive Care Unit, Cristo Redentor Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Rafael BadenesDepartment of Anesthesiology and Surgical-Trauma Intensive Care Unit, Hospital Clínic Universitari de Valencia, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Pedro KurtzDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, D'Or Institute for Research and Education, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Christian Baastrup SøndergaardDepartment of Neuroanaesthesiology and Neurosurgery, Neuroscience Centre, Copenhagen University, Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kirsten ColpaertDepartment of Intensive Care, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Leticia PettersonIntensive Care Unit, Cristo Redentor Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Herve QuintardDivision of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Clinical Pharmacology, Intensive Care, and Emergency Medicine, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.
Raphael CinottiDivision Anesthésie-Réanimation, Hôtel-Dieu, Université de Nantes, Nantes, France.
Elisa Gouvêa BogossianDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Cassia RighyDepartment of Neurointensive Care, Instituto Estadual do Cerebro Paulo Niemeyer, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Serena SilvaInstitute of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Catholic University School of Medicine, Rome, Italy.
Erik Roman-PognuzDipartimento di Scienze Mediche, Università di Trieste, Trieste, Italy.
Catherine VandewaeterDepartment of Intensive Care, AZ Delta, Roeselaere, Belgium.
Daniel LemkeIntensive Care Unit, Cristo Redentor Hospital, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Olivier HuetDepartment of Anesthesia, Intensive Care Medicine, and Peri-Operative Medicine, CHRU de Brest, University of Bretagne Occidentale, Hôpital de la Cavale Blanche, Brest, France.
Ata MahmoodpoorDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Aaron Blandino OrtizDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Ramón y Cajal University Hospital, Universidad de Alcalá, Madrid, Spain.
Mathieu van der JagtDepartment of Intensive Care Adults, Erasmus MC-University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Russell ChabanneDepartment of Perioperative Medicine, University Hospital of Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Walter VidettaHospital Nacional Professor Alejandro Posadas, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Pierre BouzatUniversité Grenoble Alpes, Inserm U1216, CHU Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble Institut Neurosciences, Grenoble, France.
Jean-Louis VincentDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
TRAIN Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Blood transfusions are commonly administered to patients with acute brain injury. The optimal hemoglobin transfusion threshold is uncertain in this patient population. Objective: To assess the impact on neurological outcome of 2 different hemoglobin thresholds to guide red blood cell transfusions in patients with acute brain injury. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, phase 3, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, pragmatic, open-label randomized clinical trial conducted in 72 intensive care units across 22 countries. Eligible patients had traumatic brain injury, aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, or intracerebral hemorrhage; hemoglobin values below 9 g/dL within the first 10 days after injury; and an expected intensive care unit stay of at least 72 hours. Enrollment occurred between September 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022. The last day of follow-up was June 30, 2023. Interventions: Eight hundred fifty patients were randomly assigned to undergo a liberal (transfusion triggered by hemoglobin <9 g/dL; n = 408) or a restrictive (transfusion triggered by hemoglobin <7 g/dL; n = 442) transfusion strategy over a 28-day period. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was occurrence of an unfavorable neurological outcome, defined as a Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended score between 1 and 5, at 180 days following randomization. There were 14 prespecified serious adverse events, including occurrence of cerebral ischemia after randomization. Results: Among 820 patients who completed the trial (mean age, 51 years; 376 [45.9%] women), 806 had available data on the primary outcome, 393 in the liberal strategy group and 413 in the restrictive strategy group. The liberal strategy group received a median of 2 (IQR, 1-3) units of blood, and the restrictive strategy group received a median of 0 (IQR, 0-1) units of blood, with an absolute mean difference of 1.0 unit (95% CI, 0.87-1.12 units). At 180 days after randomization, 246 patients (62.6%) in the liberal strategy group had an unfavorable neurological outcome compared with 300 patients (72.6%) in the restrictive strategy group (absolute difference, -10.0% [95% CI, -16.5% to -3.6%]; adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.94]; P = .002). The effect of the transfusion thresholds on neurological outcome at 180 days was consistent across prespecified subgroups. In the liberal strategy group, 35 (8.8%) of 397 patients had at least 1 cerebral ischemic event compared with 57 (13.5%) of 423 in the restrictive strategy group (relative risk, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.44-0.97]). Conclusions and Relevance: Patients with acute brain injury and anemia randomized to a liberal transfusion strategy were less likely to have an unfavorable neurological outcome than those randomized to a restrictive strategy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02968654.

Indexed as

Blood TransfusionBrain Injuries, TraumaticCerebral HemorrhageHemoglobinsIntracranial AneurysmSubarachnoid HemorrhageAdultAgedFemaleGlasgow Outcome ScaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedHemoglobins

Identifiers

PMID39382241
PMCPMC11581574

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.