Trial reportIntensive care medicine2026
Early red blood cell transfusion strategy in septic shock among patients with cancer: the TRANSPORT randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Intensive care medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeSeptic shock in cancer patients remains associated with a grim prognosis. With regard to the high prevalence of anemia, the optimal hemoglobin target to restore tissue oxygenation remains uncertain.
methodsThis was a multicenter superiority randomized controlled trial carried out in 18 centers in France. Adult patients with hematological or solid malignancies presenting with septic shock with lactate level > 2.0 mmol/L and hemoglobin level < 9.0 g/dL were randomly assigned to liberal or restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion directed by hemoglobin thresholds of 9.0 g/dL or 7.0 g/dL during the first 48 h of resuscitation. The primary endpoint was 12-h lactate reduction, defined as normalization ≤ 2.0 mmol/L or relative decrease by 30% from baseline. Key secondary endpoints included ICU-acquired infections, arterial and venous thrombotic events, and 28-day mortality.
resultsThe trial was designed to enroll 260 patients but was prematurely stopped for safety concerns. Finally, 187 patients were enrolled, distributed into 93 in the liberal arm and 94 in the restrictive arm. Twelve-hour lactate reduction was achieved in 52% and 50% of patients in the liberal and restrictive arms, respectively (odds ratio 1.07; 95% confidence interval 0.60 to 1.90; P = 0.82). Arterial or venous thrombotic events occurred more frequently in the liberal group (13% vs. 1%; P = 0.001), and 28-day mortality rates were 46% and 53% (P = 0.34), respectively.
conclusionsIn cancer patients with septic shock, this trial did not demonstrate superiority of liberal over restrictive transfusion strategy. The absence of mortality benefit and the uncertainty surrounding the observed imbalance in adverse events do not support the routine preference of either transfusion strategy over the other.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42616082What 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.