Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41305907›Full record

Trial reportTransfusion2026

Transfusion-related adverse events in patients with restrictive or liberal transfusion strategy. An analysis of the MINT trial.

Shahab Ghafghazi, Lynne Uhl, Brandon Herbert, Marnie Bertolet, John H Alexander, Shaun G Goodman, Jay Raval, Francois Roubille, Christopher B Fordyce, Michael Goldfarb and 13 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Transfusion, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Trial
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

23 authors.

Shahab GhafghaziDepartment of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, USA.
Lynne UhlDepartment of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8868-7198
Brandon HerbertDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Marnie BertoletDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5799-9033
John H AlexanderDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Shaun G GoodmanSt. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jay RavalDepartment of Pathology, University of Vermont School of Medicine, Burlington, Vermont, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9835-957X
Francois RoubilleCardiology Department, University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Christopher B FordyceDivision of Cardiology, Vancouver General Hospital and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Michael GoldfarbDivision of Cardiology, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Kevin BaineyCanadian VIGOUR Centre and BAIM Institute for Clinical Research, University of Alberta/Mazankowski Alberta Heart Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Pedro Beraldo de AndradeBrazilian Clinical Research Institute, Sao Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3511-7375
Janek SenaratneDepartment Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Arthur BraceyDepartment of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Robert O RoswellDepartment of Science Education and Cardiology, Northwell Health, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, New York, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4358-6534
Renato LopesDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Tabassome SimonHôpital Saint Antoine, Sorbonne Université, FACT (French Alliance for Cardiovascular Trials), Paris, France.
Gabriel StegHôpital Saint Antoine, Sorbonne Université, FACT (French Alliance for Cardiovascular Trials), Paris, France.
Maria M BrooksDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Paul C HebertBuyere Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Jeffrey L CarsonDepartment of Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5466-2833
Darrell J TriuliziDepartment of Pathology, Division of Transfusion Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
MINT Trial Investigators

Funding

Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion (MINT) - CCCU01HL133817 · NHLBI · RUTGERS BIOMEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES · PI CARSON, JEFFREY LEE · 2016 to 2022
$17.1M
Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion (MINT) - DCCU01HL132853 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI BROOKS, MARIA MORI · 2016 to 2022
$4.1M
Canadian Blood Services and Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Institute of Circulatory and Respiratory Health 342193NHLBI NIH HHS U01 HL132853NHLBI NIH HHS U01HL132853NHLBI NIH HHS U01 HL133817
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this analysis was to quantify and compare the frequency of transfusion-related adverse events (TRAE) in adult patients with myocardial infarction transfused with a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy from the Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion (MINT) trial. STUDY DESIGN AND

methodsClinical sites reported TRAE. Major TRAE were transfusion-related acute lung injury, transfusion-associated circulatory overload, acute hemolytic transfusion reaction, anaphylactic transfusion reaction, and transfusion-associated sepsis. TRAE rates per transfusion arm per patient and per 100 units of red blood cells (RBC) transfused were calculated.

resultsThere were nine site-reported events in the restrictive transfusion arm and 49 events in the liberal transfusion arm with an overall event rate of 0.51 in the restrictive transfusion arm, and 2.80 in the liberal transfusion arm per 100 patients, rate difference -2.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.12,-1.44.. The rate of major TRAE was 0.51 in the restrictive arm and 1.99 in the liberal arm per 100 patients, rate difference -1.48 (95% CI, -2.21, -0.74). When the rates were normalized per 100 units of RBC transfused, the rate difference of major TRAE was -0.08 (95% CI, -0.63, 0.46) and rate ratio was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.43, 1.87).

conclusionThe rate of major TRAE was low, albeit increased in the liberal transfusion arm proportional to the number of RBC units transfused. The higher rate of major TRAE in the liberal arm was not sufficient to offset the increased rates of myocardial infarction or death at 30 days observed in patients assigned to the restrictive transfusion arm.

Indexed as

Blood TransfusionErythrocyte TransfusionMyocardial InfarctionTransfusion ReactionAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSepsisacute hemolytic transfusion reactionanaphylactic transfusion reactionfebrile non‐hemolytic reactionheart failuremajor transfusion‐related adverse eventstransfusion‐associated circulatory overload (TACO)transfusion‐associated sepsistransfusion‐related acute lung injury (TRALI)transfusion‐related adverse eventsurticarial transfusion reaction

Identifiers

PMID41305907
PMCPMC12857874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.