Red blood cell transfusion for critically ill patients admitted through the emergency department in South Korea

Tae Sung Kim; Yongil Cho; Hyuk Joong Choi; Joonbum Park; Wonhee Kim; Chiwon Ahn; Joon Young Kim

doi:10.4266/acc.2024.00577

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Acute Crit Care > Volume 39(4); 2024 > Article

Original Article Epidemiology Red blood cell transfusion for critically ill patients admitted through the emergency department in South Korea: Tae Sung Kim¹, Yongil Cho^1,2, Hyuk Joong Choi¹, Joonbum Park³, Wonhee Kim⁴, Chiwon Ahn⁵, Joon Young Kim⁶; Acute and Critical Care 2024;39(4):517-525.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.2024.00577
Published online: November 5, 2024

¹Department of Emergency Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

²Hanyang Institute of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea

³Department of Emergency Medicine, Soonchunhyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁴Department of Emergency Medicine, Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁵Department of Emergency Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁶Department of Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Yongil Cho Department of Emergency Medicine, Hanyang University College of Medicine, 222-1 Wangsimni-ro, Seongdong-gu, Seoul 04763, Korea Tel: +82-2-2290-9827 Fax: +82-2-2290-9832 E-mail: joeguy@hanyang.ac.kr

• Received: April 3, 2024 • Revised: August 12, 2024 • Accepted: September 3, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

405 Views
29 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
KEY MESSAGES
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background
Red blood cells (RBCs) are a limited resource, and the adverse effects of transfusion must be considered. Multiple randomized controlled trials on transfusion thresholds have been conducted, leading to the establishment of a restrictive transfusion strategy. This study aimed to investigate the status of RBC transfusions in critically ill patients.
Methods
This cohort study was conducted at five university hospitals in South Korea. From December 18, 2022, to November 30, 2023, 307 nontraumatic, anemic patients admitted to intensive care units through the emergency departments were enrolled. We determined whether patients received RBC transfusion, transfusion triggers, and the clinical results.
Results
Of the 154 patients who received RBC transfusions, 71 (46.1%) had a hemoglobin level of 7 or higher. Triggers other than hemoglobin level included increased lactate levels in 75 patients (48.7%), tachycardia in 47 patients (30.5%), and hypotension in 46 patients (29.9%). The 28-day mortality rate was not significantly reduced in the group that received transfusions compared to the non-transfusion group (21.4% vs. 26.8%, P=0.288). There was no difference in the intensive care unit and hospital length of stay or the proportion of survival to discharge between the two groups. The prognosis showed the same pattern in various subgroups.
Conclusions
Despite the large number of RBC transfusions used in contradiction to the restrictive strategy, there was no notable difference in the prognosis of critically ill patients. To minimize unnecessary RBC transfusions, the promotion of transfusion guidelines and research on transfusion criteria that reflect individual patient conditions are required.
Keywords: critical illness; emergency department; erythrocyte transfusion; intensive care unit

INTRODUCTION

Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is an important treatment strategy for improving tissue oxygenation and perfusion. However, blood transfusions can cause adverse effects including transfusion-associated circulatory overload or transfusion-related immunomodulation [1,2]. Additionally, blood is a limited medical resource requiring appropriate transfusion [3]. In clinical practice, many patients receive unnecessary blood transfusions [4,5].

Recent guidelines recommend a restrictive transfusion strategy with a low hemoglobin (Hb) level of 7 g/dl as the RBC threshold in critically ill patients [6-8]. These guidelines also suggest that Hb thresholds, clinical judgment, and other physiological parameters should be considered. However, evidence for the physiological criteria for RBC transfusion is not clear; therefore, it is performed according to the subjective judgment of the clinicians. According to a survey published in the Korean Journal of Blood Transfusion in 2016, most RBC transfusion decisions in Korea are based on clinical judgment rather than the Hb threshold [9]. In a review article published in 2023, the RBC transfusion rate in Korea was higher than that in other countries and continues to increase [10]. A recent international prospective cohort study of 3,643 critically ill patients reported that pre-transfusion Hb levels varied widely from 5.2 g/dl to 13.1 g/dl [11]. However, studies reporting on RBC transfusion practices and triggers in critically ill patients are rare.

This multicenter cohort study investigated the practice of RBC transfusions in critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) through emergency departments (EDs) in Korea. This study aimed to identify the current status of RBC transfusions, triggers for transfusions, and differences in prognosis depending on whether RBC transfusions were administered. Our hypothesis is that, even in clinical situations where there is no clear evidence that RBC transfusions improve outcomes, they are still being administered to critically ill patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This research study was conducted with approval from the Institutional Review Boards of each of the five hospitals in a metropolitan area of South Korea (No. HYUH 2022-08-013-001, GURI 2022-09-008-003, SCHUH 2022-08-005-001, HKS 2022-08-002-001, 2208-016-519). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients.

Study Setting and Population

This cohort study focused on patients admitted to the ICU after visiting the EDs of five university hospitals in a metropolitan area of South Korea. Among these, patients aged ≥18 years, without trauma, and with Hb ≤10 g/dl were included in the cohort. Liberal transfusion strategies involve administering blood transfusions when the Hb level is below 9–10 g/dl, whereas restrictive transfusion strategies involve transfusing when the Hb level is below 7–8 g/dl. We hypothesized that transfusion thresholds may differ among clinicians in real-world practice. Accordingly, we designed our cohort to include patients with an Hb level of 10 g/dl or less to examine the variability in transfusion criteria.

Patients with diseases requiring surgery, with do-not-resuscitate orders, or who received massive blood transfusions were excluded from the study. The criteria for massive transfusion are defined as receiving more than 10 units of RBC within 24 hours or more than 6 units within 6 hours. Therefore, this study includes non-massively bleeding and non-bleeding critically ill patients. Among the 312 patients enrolled between December 18, 2022, and November 30, 2023, 307 patients were included as study subjects, excluding five patients whose 28-day mortality was not confirmed (Figure 1). In this cohort, there were no predetermined criteria for transfusion, and transfusion decisions were made by clinicians.

Data Collection and Variables

We confirmed whether the patient received an RBC transfusion in the EDs or ICUs within 24 hours of visiting the EDs. Age, sex, body mass index, vital signs, and comorbidities were identified as baseline characteristics. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were confirmed as indicators of patient severity. We identified sepsis, gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, in-hospital cardiac arrest, and receipt of ventilator care or continuous renal replacement therapy as the representative reasons for ICU admission.

The proportion of patients with Hb levels of <7 g/dl corresponding to restrictive transfusion was identified. Conversely, we confirmed the proportion of patients who received blood transfusions despite their Hb being ≥7. This study did not directly ask clinicians why they decided to administer transfusions. However, this was indirectly confirmed by the proportion of patients who met the previously known triggers for RBC transfusion: low Hb level, increased lactate level, tachycardia, and hypotension.

The primary outcome variable for the patients’ clinical course was set as the 28-day mortality rate. In addition, the duration of ICU and hospital admissions, and the proportions of patients with survival discharge were also identified. We aimed to confirm the hypothesis that these outcomes would not show significant differences based on whether RBC transfusions were administered. Study outcomes were confirmed in subgroups based on Hb level 7 g/dl. Furthermore, considering that outcomes for critically ill patients may vary depending on the conditions precipitating their admission, we evaluated these outcomes across various subgroups. These subgroups included patients with GI bleeding, sepsis, those on mechanical ventilation, and those undergoing continuous renal replacement therapy.

Statistical Analyses

Continuous variables were tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test and none showed normal distribution. Therefore, continuous variables are expressed as median (interquartile range [IQR]). Categorical variables are expressed as numbers (%). The two groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. Statistical significance was determined using two-sided tests with a P-value ≤0.05. All analyses were conducted using R software (version 4.2.0) with the R Studio interface.

RESULTS

Characteristics of the Study Population

A total of 307 patients were identified from five university hospitals in South Korea from December 18, 2022, to November 30, 2023 (Figure 1). Table 1 shows the baseline characteristics of the study population. Of 307 patients, 154 (50.2%) received one or more RBC transfusions in the first 24 hours. The median age was 68 years (IQR, 57–80 years) in the transfusion group and 76 years (IQR, 68–83 years) in the non-transfusion group. The proportion of men in the group that received and did not receive blood transfusions was 53.9% and 45.1%, respectively. Vital signs, APACHE II, and SOFA scores, which indicate initial clinical severity, were not significantly different between the two groups. The proportion of patients with chronic liver disease was higher in the transfusion group than that of the non-transfusion group (20.8% vs. 9.2%, P=0.006). The most common reason for ICU admission were sepsis (n=55, 35.9%) in the non-transfusion group and GI bleeding (n=68, 44.2%) in the transfusion group.

We identified the lowest Hb levels among patients in the ED. The median Hb level in the transfusion group was 6.8 g/dl (IQR, 5.5–8.0 g/dl), which was significantly lower than the non-transfused group, with a median Hb of 9.2 g/dl (IQR, 8.4–9.5 g/dl). Among patients who received transfusions, the proportion of patients with Hb levels <7 g/dl was 53.9%, which was significantly higher than that of non-transfusion patients (5.9%) (Table 1). Conversely, 71 patients (46.1%) received RBC transfusion despite Hb ≥7 g/dl based on criteria that did not follow the restrictive transfusion threshold (Figure 2). Patients who received transfusions received a median of 2 units (1–4) of RBCs in the first 24 hours. Of the 154 patients who received RBC transfusion in the first 24 hours, 55 (35.7%) did not undergo Hb testing after one unit of RBC transfusion. The median Hb value after receiving one unit of RBC was 7.4 g/dl (IQR, 6.6–8.8 g/dl; n=99 patients).

Presumed Triggers for RBC Transfusion

Table 2 shows the presumed triggers for RBC transfusion. Among patients who received RBC transfusions, the proportion of patients with Hb ≥7 g/dl was 55.8% (48/86) in patients with non-GI bleeding, which was higher than the 33.8% (23/68) in patients with GI bleeding. In particular, 64.5% of sepsis patients who received RBC transfusions had Hb ≥7 g/dl and did not follow the restrictive transfusion threshold. The leading trigger for initiating RBC transfusion was Hb <7 g/dl (53.9%), followed by lactate ≥2 mmol/L (48.7%). Among patients who received RBC transfusion, the proportion with lactate ≥2 mmol/L was 66.7%, 55.9%, and 51.6% in patients with mechanical ventilation, GI bleeding, and sepsis, respectively. Triggers other than Hb and lactate level included tachycardia in 47 patients (30.5%) and hypotension in 46 patients (29.9%). In patients with Hb ≥7 g/dl, the proportions of those with lactate ≥ 4 mmol/L, tachycardia, and hypotension were 25.4%, 28.2%, and 23.9%, respectively. Additionally, in patients with Hb <7 g/dl, the proportions of those exhibiting these conditions were higher, at 32.5%, 32.5%, and 34.9%, respectively.

Prognosis

The 28-day mortality rate was 26.8% (41/153) and 21.4% (33/154) in the non-transfusion and transfusion groups, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups (P=0.288) (Table 3). Additionally, no significant differences were found between the two groups in the length of ICU stay (6.0 vs. 5.0 days, P=0.404) and the length of hospital stay (13.0 vs. 11.0 days, P=0.367). The proportion of patients discharged alive from the hospital was 74.5% and 77.3% (P=0.596), respectively. These results were consistent regardless of whether the Hb level was above or below 7 mg/dl (Table 4). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality, duration of ICU and hospital admission, and proportions of patients who survived to discharge according to RBC transfusion in both groups with and without GI bleeding (Table 4). The same pattern was observed in the subgroups of patients with sepsis, those who received mechanical ventilation or continuous renal replacement therapy.

DISCUSSION

For several decades, RBCs have been transfused to maintain Hb levels above 10 g/dl [12]. However, the 1999 Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care study showed that limited and liberal transfusion strategies were equally effective in critically ill patients [13]. Recent guidelines have recommended a restrictive transfusion strategy in critically ill patients. Several studies have been conducted on the optimal Hb target, and the number of RBC transfusions is decreasing worldwide [14]. However, it is reported that RBCs are still excessively transfused to critically ill patients. In an international multicenter study (International Point Prevalence Study of Intensive Care Unit Transfusion Practices [InPUT]) in 2023, RBC transfusions beyond the restrictive transfusion strategy were performed in 51.5% of the critically ill patients [11]. Korean studies have explored the RBC transfusion amounts based on disease or surgery, however, none have specifically addressed the practical status of RBC transfusion in critically ill patients [10,15,16]. In our study, 47.4% of critically ill emergency patients received RBC transfusions with Hb levels ≥7 g/dl. Approximately 50% of critically ill patients are still receiving RBC transfusions that are inadequate for their restrictive Hb levels. These results indicate that factors other than Hb level play a role in clinicians' decisions regarding RBC transfusion.

The purpose of RBC transfusion is to meet tissue oxygen demand. Hb levels are easy to measure and have a clear cut-off value. However, even with the same Hb level, a patient's RBC requirement can vary depending on the individual’s conditions and tissue oxygen consumption [17]. Recent guidelines recommend the consideration of not only the Hb level but also other parameters, such as blood pressure, heart rate, electrocardiogram, oxygen partial pressure, central venous oxygen saturation, arteriovenous oxygen difference, lactate, and others [6,7]. The InPUT study identified tachycardia, hypotension, and elevated lactate levels as important triggering factors for RBC transfusion. In our study, approximately half of patients who underwent transfusions had exhibited elevated lactate levels. Until now, studies of non-Hb parameters as a determinant of transfusion have been limited [18-23]. The PASPORT (patient-specific cerebral oxygentation monitoring as part of an algorithm to reduce transfusion) trial included 204 heart surgery patients who underwent transfusions using the existing restrictive transfusion strategy and the patient-specific near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) strategy and compared cognitive function 3 months after surgery. The results of this study do not support the use of the NIRS-based algorithm [23]. Additional research is needed to determine whether outcomes differ based on physiological transfusion criteria other than Hb, which were observed at a high proportion in our study.

Many randomized controlled trials have reported that the restrictive transfusion strategy showed no difference in clinical outcomes compared to the liberal strategy in critically ill patients [24-27]. However, the restrictive transfusion group underwent significantly fewer RBC transfusions. In 2021, a systematic review of 48 studies and 21,433 people analyzed the 30-day mortality and adverse events of restrictive transfusion compared to liberal transfusion [28]. According to the Cochrane review, the restrictive transfusion strategy reduced the RBC transfusion rate by 41%. Our study did not compare restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies. However, there was no significant difference in the prognosis between the transfusion and the non-transfusion groups in the various subgroups. Future research is needed to investigate the impact of Hb thresholds lower than Hb <7 g/dl, such as Hb <6 g/dl or Hb <5 g/dl, on outcomes in critically ill patients.

RBC transfusion can improve tissue oxygenation but may cause adverse effects such as transfusion-related acute lung injury, transfusion-associated circulatory overload, and immune-modulating effects resulting in nosocomial infections [29]. Additionally, in an aging society where blood product shortages are expected, Korea needs to discuss appropriate RBC transfusions. The 2018 Frankfurt Conference emphasized the significance of patient blood management in reducing unnecessary blood transfusions [30]. In 2020, the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service in Korea evaluated the adequacy of blood transfusion for total knee replacement. The blood transfusion rate was lowered from 62.1% to 41.0% just by conducting the evaluation. ICUs are also frequent settings for blood transfusions, underscoring the importance of initiatives aimed at minimizing unnecessary blood transfusions in critically ill patients.

This study had several limitations. First, this was a multicenter study conducted in five academic hospitals in the capital region. Therefore, the characteristics of the patient group in this study may differ from those in regional or non-academic hospitals. However, given the nature of the Korean medical system, most critically ill patients are transferred to academic hospitals, therefore, there may not be a significant difference in the characteristics of these patients compared to those in general critical care. Second, we did not directly ask clinicians about the specific factors that influenced their decision to administer transfusions. Instead, we used an indirect approach by analyzing blood test results and vital signs to infer the possible triggers for RBC transfusions. The physiological transfusion criteria we identified only represent the proportions of patients presenting these conditions. We could not precisely determine how frequently these criteria were actually used by clinicians as transfusion triggers. Nevertheless, our indirect analysis aims to hypothesize whether factors beyond Hb levels might have influenced transfusion decisions. Third, our study has limited statistical power due to insufficient sample sizes within subgroups. Specifically, the GI bleeding subgroup consisted mostly of transfused individuals (n=68), while the non-transfused group was relatively small (n=5). This disparity complicates outcome comparisons and constrains the strength of our conclusions. Nevertheless, our study aimed to demonstrate that despite transfusions being administered more frequently than restrictive Hb thresholds suggest, transfused patients did not show a clear improvement in outcomes.

In conclusion, despite the common use of RBC transfusions in critically ill patients contrary to guideline recommendations, they do not significantly improve outcomes. In this multicenter study, 50.2% of the 307 ICU patients with Hb ≤10 g/dl, admitted through the ED, received RBC transfusions. Among the 154 patients who received transfusions, 46.1% had Hb levels ≥7 g/dl, exceeding the restrictive threshold. This practice was notably prevalent among patients with non-GI bleeding such as sepsis. Regardless of the patient subgroups, the 28-day mortality did not differ with or without RBC transfusion. Further research on transfusion thresholds, along with institutional efforts to enforce them, is needed to prevent unnecessary transfusions.

KEY MESSAGES

▪ Transfusions that do not follow a restrictive transfusion strategy are frequently observed.

▪ Triggers other than hemoglobin levels are associated with red blood cells (RBCs) transfusions.

▪ RBC transfusions that do not follow a restrictive transfusion strategy does not improve prognosis in critically ill patients.

NOTES

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

FUNDING

This research was supported by a grant from the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant no. HI22C1553).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

None.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization: YC. Data curation: YC, HJC, JP, WK, CA. Formal analysis: TSK, YC, JYK. Funding acquisition: YC. Methodology: TSK, YC. Project administration: YC. Visualization: YC. Writing – original draft: TSK, YC, JYK. Writing – review & editing: YC, HJC, JP, WK, CA. All authors read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Figure 1.

Study flowchart. Hb: hemoglobin; ICU: intensive care unit.

Figure 2.

The lowest hemoglobin level before red blood cell transfusion in patients undergoing transfusion during the first 24 hours after emergency department visit (n=154).

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of study population

Variable	No transfusion (n=153)	Transfusion (n=154)	P-value
Age (yr)	76 (68–83)	68 (57–80)	<0.001
Sex			0.138
Male	69 (45.1)	83 (53.9)
Female	84 (54.9)	71 (46.1)
BMI (kg/m²)	21.5 (18.4–24.1)	21.6 (19.1–24.9)	0.343
Systolic BP (mm Hg)	112.0 (93.0–144.0)	111.0 (92.5–137.0)	0.789
Diastolic BP (mm Hg)	63.0 (50.0–78.0)	62.0 (51.0–78.0)	0.853
Heart rate (beats/min)	93.0 (76.0–110.0)	98.0 (82.0–110.0)	0.377
Respiratory rate (breaths/min)	18.0 (16.0–22.0)	20.0 (18.0–22.0)	0.238
SpO₂ (%)	97.0 (95.0–99.0)	98.0 (94.0–99.0)	0.487
Body temperature (°C)	36.7 (36.1–37.3)	36.5 (36.0–37.3)	0.185
Mental			0.189
Alert	100 (66.7)	117 (76.0)
Verbal	13 (8.5)	14 (9.1)
Pain	27 (17.6)	17 (11.0)
Unresponsive	11 (7.2)	6 (3.9)
APACHE II score	19.0 (15.0–24.0)	19.0 (14.0–24.0)	0.777
SOFA score	6.0 (4.0–9.0)	6.0 (3.0–8.0)	0.177
Comorbidity
Hypertension	96 (63.4)	75 (48.7)	0.011
Diabetic mellitus	87 (56.9)	66 (42.9)	0.017
Myocardial infarction	13 (8.5)	8 (5.2)	0.268
Heart failure	19 (12.4)	12 (7.8)	0.191
Cerebrovascular disease	21 (13.7)	21 (13.6)	1.000
Chronic lung disease	10 (6.5)	5 (3.2)	0.198
Chronic liver disease	14 (9.2)	32 (20.8)	0.006
Chronic kidney disease	39 (25.5)	27 (17.5)	0.097
Solid tumor	18 (11.8)	21 (13.6)	0.732
Chronic anemia	15 (9.8)	20 (13.0)	0.473
Reason for ICU admission
Sepsis	55 (35.9)	31 (20.1)	0.003
Ventilator care	29 (19.0)	24 (15.6)	0.529
GI bleeding	5 (3.3)	68 (44.2)	<0.001
OHCA	9 (5.9)	4 (2.6)	0.252
IHCA	2 (1.3)	2 (1.3)	1.000
CRRT	28 (18.3)	26 (16.9)	0.860
Treatment in ED
Vasopressors	64 (41.8)	53 (34.4)	0.197
High flow nasal cannula	20 (13.1)	14 (9.1)	0.281
Noninvasive ventilation	1 (0.7)	1 (0.7)	1.000
Laboratory value
Hb (g/dl)	9.2 (8.4–9.5)	6.8 (5.5–8.0)	<0.001
Hb <7 g/dl	9 (5.9)	83 (53.9)	<0.001
Hematocrit (%)	28.4 (26.7–30.0)	21.6 (17.4–24.9)	<0.001

Values are presented as median (interquartile range) or number (%).

BMI: body mass index; BP: blood pressure; APACHE: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation; SOFA: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment; ICU: intensive care unit; GI: gastrointestinal; OHCA: out of hospital cardiac arrest; IHCA: in hospital cardiac arrest; CRRT: continuous renal replacement therapy; ED: emergent department; Hb: hemoglobin.

Table 2.

Presumed triggers for RBC transfusion

Variable	Hb <7 g/dl	Lactate ≥2 mmol/L	Lactate ≥4 mmol/L	Tachycardia	Hypotension
All patients (n=154)	83 (53.9)	75 (48.7)	45 (29.2)	47 (30.5)	46 (29.9)
Hb <7 g/dl (n=83)	-	44 (53.0)	27 (32.5)	27 (32.5)	29 (34.9)
Hb ≥7 g/dl (n=71)	-	31 (43.7)	18 (25.4)	20 (28.2)	17 (23.9)
GI bleeding (n=68)	45 (66.2)	38 (55.9)	25 (36.8)	25 (36.8)	21 (30.9)
Non-GI bleeding (n=86)	38 (44.2)	37 (43.0)	20 (23.3)	22 (25.6)	25 (29.1)
Sepsis (n=31)	11 (35.5)	16 (51.6)	9 (29.0)	9 (29.0)	14 (45.2)
Mechanical ventilator (n=24)	10 (41.7)	16 (66.7)	12 (50.0)	11 (45.8)	11 (45.8)
CRRT (n=26)	12 (46.2)	10 (38.5)	7 (26.9)	4 (15.4)	2 (7.7)

Values are presented as number (%).

RBC: red blood cell; Hb: hemoglobin; GI: gastrointestinal; CRRT: continuous renal replacement therapy.

Table 3.

Outcomes in transfusion and non-transfusion groups

Variable	Non-transfusion (n=153)	Transfusion (n=154)	P-value
28-Day mortality	41 (26.8)	33 (21.4)	0.288
Duration of ICU admission (day)	6.0 (4.0–12.0)	5.0 (3.0–11.0)	0.404
Duration of hospital admission (day)	13.0 (8.0–20.0)	11.0 (7.0–21.0)	0.367
Survival discharge	114 (74.5)	119 (77.3)	0.596

Values are presented as number (%) or median (interquartile range).

ICU: intensive care unit.

Table 4.

Subgroup analysis of study outcomes in transfusion and non-transfusion groups

Variable	No transfusion (n=153)	Transfusion (n=154)	P-value
Hb <7 g/dl	n=9	n=83
28-Day mortality	1 (11.1)	13 (15.7)	1.000
Duration of ICU admission (day)	6.0 (3.0–16.0)	5.0 (3.0–10.5)	0.711
Duration of hospital admission (day)	16.0 (9.0–22.0)	12.0 (6.0–21.5)	0.473
Survival discharge	8 (88.9)	69 (83.1)	1.000
Hb ≥7 g/dl	n=144	n=71
28-Day mortality	40 (27.8)	20 (28.2)	1.000
Duration of ICU admission (day)	6.0 (4.0–12.0)	6.0 (3.0–11.0)	0.539
Duration of hospital admission (day)	13.0 (7.0–20.0)	11.0 (7.0–20.5)	0.414
Survival discharge	106 (73.6)	50 (70.4)	0.629
GI bleeding	n=5	n=68
28-Day mortality	2 (40.0)	7 (10.3)	0.112
Duration of ICU admission (day)	5.0 (4.0–12.0)	5.0 (3.0–7.5)	0.454
Duration of hospital admission (day)	12.0 (8.0–15.0)	9.0 (6.0–13.0)	0.405
Survival discharge	3 (60.0)	61 (89.7)	0.112
No GI bleeding	n=148	n=86
28-Day mortality	39 (26.4)	26 (30.2)	0.547
Duration of ICU admission (day)	6.0 (3.5–12.0)	7.0 (3.0–13.0)	0.534
Duration of hospital admission (day)	13.0 (7.5–20.5)	15.5 (8.0–23.0)	0.343
Survival discharge	111 (75.0)	58 (67.4)	0.228
Sepsis	n=55	n=31
28-Day mortality	17 (30.9)	11 (35.5)	0.811
Duration of ICU admission (day)	7.0 (4.0–13.5)	6.0 (4.0–12.0)	0.921
Duration of hospital admission (day)	14.0 (9.0–23.0)	16.0 (9.0–26.0)	0.871
Survival discharge	37 (67.3)	21 (67.7)	1.000
Mechanical ventilator	n=29	n=24
28-Day mortality	13 (44.8)	13 (54.2)	0.586
Duration of ICU admission (day)	11.0 (4.0–16.0)	5.5 (3.0–11.0)	0.066
Duration of hospital admission (day)	15.0 (6.0–25.0)	9.5 (3.0–18.0)	0.060
Survival discharge	16 (55.2)	10 (41.7)	0.412
CRRT	n=28	n=26
28-Day mortality	9 (32.1)	6 (23.1)	0.550
Duration of ICU admission (day)	5.0 (4.0–14.0)	9.5 (5.0–15.0)	0.366
Duration of hospital admission (day)	16.0 (8.5–21.5)	19.0 (12.0–26.0)	0.298
Survival discharge	19 (67.9)	19 (73.1)	0.770

Values are presented as number (%) or median (interquartile range).

Hb: hemoglobin; ICU: intensive care unit; GI: gastrointestinal; CRRT: continuous renal replacement therapy.

REFERENCES

1. Bosboom JJ, Klanderman RB, Zijp M, Hollmann MW, Veelo DP, Binnekade JM, et al. Incidence, risk factors, and outcome of transfusion-associated circulatory overload in a mixed intensive care unit population: a nested case-control study. Transfusion 2018;58:498-506.Article PubMed PDF
2. Remy KE, Hall MW, Cholette J, Juffermans NP, Nicol K, Doctor A, et al. Mechanisms of red blood cell transfusion-related immunomodulation. Transfusion 2018;58:804-15.Article PubMed PMC PDF
3. Roberts N, James S, Delaney M, Fitzmaurice C. The global need and availability of blood products: a modelling study. Lancet Haematol 2019;6:e606-15.Article PubMed
4. Song J, Kim S, Chung HS, Park I, Kwon SS, Myung J. Predictive indicators for determining red blood cell transfusion strategies in the emergency department. Eur J Emerg Med 2023;30:260-6.Article PubMed
5. Anthes E. Evidence-based medicine: save blood, save lives. Nature 2015;520:24-6.Article PubMed PDF
6. Carson JL, Guyatt G, Heddle NM, Grossman BJ, Cohn CS, Fung MK, et al. Clinical practice guidelines from the AABB: red blood cell transfusion thresholds and storage. JAMA 2016;316:2025-35.Article PubMed
7. Vlaar AP, Oczkowski S, de Bruin S, Wijnberge M, Antonelli M, Aubron C, et al. Transfusion strategies in non-bleeding critically ill adults: a clinical practice guideline from the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med 2020;46:673-96.Article PubMed PMC PDF
8. Vlaar AP, Dionne JC, de Bruin S, Wijnberge M, Raasveld SJ, van Baarle FE, et al. Transfusion strategies in bleeding critically ill adults: a clinical practice guideline from the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med 2021;47:1368-92.Article PubMed PMC PDF
9. Kim H, Cho D, Jo HJ, Choi SR, Kim JN, Um TH. A survey of physicians’ opinion on informed consent for transfusion after the introduction of the National Blood Transfusion Guideline. Korean J Blood Transfus 2016;27:257-64.Article
10. Kim H, Ko SY, Gwon JG. Trends of blood transfusion according to diseases in Korea: a 10-Year Nationwide Cohort Study. Transfus Med Hemother 2023;50:135-43.Article PubMed PDF
11. Raasveld SJ, de Bruin S, Reuland MC, van den Oord C, Schenk J, Aubron C, et al. Red blood cell transfusion in the intensive care unit. JAMA 2023;330:1852-61.Article PubMed PMC
12. Wang JK, Klein HG. Red blood cell transfusion in the treatment and management of anaemia: the search for the elusive transfusion trigger. Vox Sang 2010;98:2-11.Article PubMed
13. Hébert PC, Wells G, Blajchman MA, Marshall J, Martin C, Pagliarello G, et al, Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care Investigators; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. A multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of transfusion requirements in critical care. N Engl J Med 1999;340:409-17.Article PubMed
14. Cavalcante Dos Santos E, Bakos P, Vincent JL. How have red blood transfusion practices changed in critically ill patients? A comparison of the ICON and ABC studies conducted 13 years apart. Transfusion 2020;60:2801-6.Article PubMed PDF
15. Jang SY, Cha YH, Yoo JI, Oh T, Kim JT, Park CH, et al. Blood transfusion for elderly patients with hip fracture: a nationwide cohort study. J Korean Med Sci 2020;35:e313.Article PubMed PMC PDF
16. Yang M, Kim HS, Lee JM, Jung J, Choi SJ, Lim J. Evaluation of hemoglobin trigger and appropriateness of perioperative red cell transfusion in surgical departments. Korean J Blood Transfus 2018;29:151-8.Article
17. Tomic Mahecic T, Dünser M, Meier J. RBC transfusion triggers: is there anything new? Transfus Med Hemother 2020;47:361-8.Article PubMed PMC PDF
18. Lauscher P, Mirakaj V, Koenig K, Meier J. Why hyperoxia matters during acute anemia. Minerva Anestesiol 2013;79:643-51.PubMed
19. Pappachan LG, Williams A, Sebastian T, Korula G, Singh G. Changes in central venous oxygen saturation, lactates, and ST segment changes in a V lead ECG with changes in hemoglobin in neurosurgical patients undergoing craniotomy and tumor excision: a prospective observational study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2019;35:99-105.Article PubMed PMC
20. Surve RM, Muthuchellappan R, Rao GS, Philip M. The effect of blood transfusion on central venous oxygen saturation in critically ill patients admitted to a neurointensive care unit. Transfus Med 2016;26:343-8.Article PubMed
21. Orlov D, O'Farrell R, McCluskey SA, Carroll J, Poonawala H, Hozhabri S, et al. The clinical utility of an index of global oxygenation for guiding red blood cell transfusion in cardiac surgery. Transfusion 2009;49:682-8.Article PubMed
22. Torella F, Haynes SL, McCollum CN. Cerebral and peripheral oxygen saturation during red cell transfusion. J Surg Res 2003;110:217-21.Article PubMed
23. Rogers CA, Stoica S, Ellis L, Stokes EA, Wordsworth S, Dabner L, et al. Randomized trial of near-infrared spectroscopy for personalized optimization of cerebral tissue oxygenation during cardiac surgery. Br J Anaesth 2017;119:384-93.Article PubMed
24. Hébert PC, Wells G, Marshall J, Martin C, Tweeddale M, Pagliarello G, et al. Transfusion requirements in critical care: a pilot study. JAMA 1995;273:1439-44.Article PubMed
25. Walsh TS, Boyd JA, Watson D, Hope D, Lewis S, Krishan A, et al. Restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies for older mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a randomized pilot trial. Crit Care Med 2013;41:2354-63.Article PubMed
26. Holst LB, Haase N, Wetterslev J, Wernerman J, Guttormsen AB, Karlsson S, et al. Lower versus higher hemoglobin threshold for transfusion in septic shock. N Engl J Med 2014;371:1381-91.Article PubMed
27. McIntyre LA, Fergusson DA, Hutchison JS, Pagliarello G, Marshall JC, Yetisir E, et al. Effect of a liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategy on mortality in patients with moderate to severe head injury. Neurocrit Care 2006;5:4-9.Article PubMed
28. Carson JL, Stanworth SJ, Dennis JA, Trivella M, Roubinian N, Fergusson DA, et al. Transfusion thresholds for guiding red blood cell transfusion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021;12:CD002042. Article PubMed
29. Rohde JM, Dimcheff DE, Blumberg N, Saint S, Langa KM, Kuhn L, et al. Health care-associated infection after red blood cell transfusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2014;311:1317-26.Article PubMed PMC
30. Mueller MM, Van Remoortel H, Meybohm P, Aranko K, Aubron C, Burger R, et al. Patient blood management: recommendations from the 2018 Frankfurt Consensus Conference. JAMA 2019;321:983-97.Article PubMed

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Red blood cell transfusion for critically ill patients admitted through the emergency department in South Korea

Acute Crit Care. 2024;39(4):517-525. Published online November 5, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4266/acc.2024.00577

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

Factors related to lung function outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 patients in South Korea

Red blood cell transfusion for critically ill patients admitted through the emergency department in South Korea

Figure 1. Study flowchart. Hb: hemoglobin; ICU: intensive care unit.

Figure 2. The lowest hemoglobin level before red blood cell transfusion in patients undergoing transfusion during the first 24 hours after emergency department visit (n=154).

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Red blood cell transfusion for critically ill patients admitted through the emergency department in South Korea

Variable	No transfusion (n=153)	Transfusion (n=154)	P-value
Age (yr)	76 (68–83)	68 (57–80)	<0.001
Sex			0.138
Male	69 (45.1)	83 (53.9)
Female	84 (54.9)	71 (46.1)
BMI (kg/m²)	21.5 (18.4–24.1)	21.6 (19.1–24.9)	0.343
Systolic BP (mm Hg)	112.0 (93.0–144.0)	111.0 (92.5–137.0)	0.789
Diastolic BP (mm Hg)	63.0 (50.0–78.0)	62.0 (51.0–78.0)	0.853
Heart rate (beats/min)	93.0 (76.0–110.0)	98.0 (82.0–110.0)	0.377
Respiratory rate (breaths/min)	18.0 (16.0–22.0)	20.0 (18.0–22.0)	0.238
SpO₂ (%)	97.0 (95.0–99.0)	98.0 (94.0–99.0)	0.487
Body temperature (°C)	36.7 (36.1–37.3)	36.5 (36.0–37.3)	0.185
Mental			0.189
Alert	100 (66.7)	117 (76.0)
Verbal	13 (8.5)	14 (9.1)
Pain	27 (17.6)	17 (11.0)
Unresponsive	11 (7.2)	6 (3.9)
APACHE II score	19.0 (15.0–24.0)	19.0 (14.0–24.0)	0.777
SOFA score	6.0 (4.0–9.0)	6.0 (3.0–8.0)	0.177
Comorbidity
Hypertension	96 (63.4)	75 (48.7)	0.011
Diabetic mellitus	87 (56.9)	66 (42.9)	0.017
Myocardial infarction	13 (8.5)	8 (5.2)	0.268
Heart failure	19 (12.4)	12 (7.8)	0.191
Cerebrovascular disease	21 (13.7)	21 (13.6)	1.000
Chronic lung disease	10 (6.5)	5 (3.2)	0.198
Chronic liver disease	14 (9.2)	32 (20.8)	0.006
Chronic kidney disease	39 (25.5)	27 (17.5)	0.097
Solid tumor	18 (11.8)	21 (13.6)	0.732
Chronic anemia	15 (9.8)	20 (13.0)	0.473
Reason for ICU admission
Sepsis	55 (35.9)	31 (20.1)	0.003
Ventilator care	29 (19.0)	24 (15.6)	0.529
GI bleeding	5 (3.3)	68 (44.2)	<0.001
OHCA	9 (5.9)	4 (2.6)	0.252
IHCA	2 (1.3)	2 (1.3)	1.000
CRRT	28 (18.3)	26 (16.9)	0.860
Treatment in ED
Vasopressors	64 (41.8)	53 (34.4)	0.197
High flow nasal cannula	20 (13.1)	14 (9.1)	0.281
Noninvasive ventilation	1 (0.7)	1 (0.7)	1.000
Laboratory value
Hb (g/dl)	9.2 (8.4–9.5)	6.8 (5.5–8.0)	<0.001
Hb <7 g/dl	9 (5.9)	83 (53.9)	<0.001
Hematocrit (%)	28.4 (26.7–30.0)	21.6 (17.4–24.9)	<0.001

Variable	Hb <7 g/dl	Lactate ≥2 mmol/L	Lactate ≥4 mmol/L	Tachycardia	Hypotension
All patients (n=154)	83 (53.9)	75 (48.7)	45 (29.2)	47 (30.5)	46 (29.9)
Hb <7 g/dl (n=83)	-	44 (53.0)	27 (32.5)	27 (32.5)	29 (34.9)
Hb ≥7 g/dl (n=71)	-	31 (43.7)	18 (25.4)	20 (28.2)	17 (23.9)
GI bleeding (n=68)	45 (66.2)	38 (55.9)	25 (36.8)	25 (36.8)	21 (30.9)
Non-GI bleeding (n=86)	38 (44.2)	37 (43.0)	20 (23.3)	22 (25.6)	25 (29.1)
Sepsis (n=31)	11 (35.5)	16 (51.6)	9 (29.0)	9 (29.0)	14 (45.2)
Mechanical ventilator (n=24)	10 (41.7)	16 (66.7)	12 (50.0)	11 (45.8)	11 (45.8)
CRRT (n=26)	12 (46.2)	10 (38.5)	7 (26.9)	4 (15.4)	2 (7.7)

Variable	Non-transfusion (n=153)	Transfusion (n=154)	P-value
28-Day mortality	41 (26.8)	33 (21.4)	0.288
Duration of ICU admission (day)	6.0 (4.0–12.0)	5.0 (3.0–11.0)	0.404
Duration of hospital admission (day)	13.0 (8.0–20.0)	11.0 (7.0–21.0)	0.367
Survival discharge	114 (74.5)	119 (77.3)	0.596

Variable	No transfusion (n=153)	Transfusion (n=154)	P-value
Hb <7 g/dl	n=9	n=83
28-Day mortality	1 (11.1)	13 (15.7)	1.000
Duration of ICU admission (day)	6.0 (3.0–16.0)	5.0 (3.0–10.5)	0.711
Duration of hospital admission (day)	16.0 (9.0–22.0)	12.0 (6.0–21.5)	0.473
Survival discharge	8 (88.9)	69 (83.1)	1.000
Hb ≥7 g/dl	n=144	n=71
28-Day mortality	40 (27.8)	20 (28.2)	1.000
Duration of ICU admission (day)	6.0 (4.0–12.0)	6.0 (3.0–11.0)	0.539
Duration of hospital admission (day)	13.0 (7.0–20.0)	11.0 (7.0–20.5)	0.414
Survival discharge	106 (73.6)	50 (70.4)	0.629
GI bleeding	n=5	n=68
28-Day mortality	2 (40.0)	7 (10.3)	0.112
Duration of ICU admission (day)	5.0 (4.0–12.0)	5.0 (3.0–7.5)	0.454
Duration of hospital admission (day)	12.0 (8.0–15.0)	9.0 (6.0–13.0)	0.405
Survival discharge	3 (60.0)	61 (89.7)	0.112
No GI bleeding	n=148	n=86
28-Day mortality	39 (26.4)	26 (30.2)	0.547
Duration of ICU admission (day)	6.0 (3.5–12.0)	7.0 (3.0–13.0)	0.534
Duration of hospital admission (day)	13.0 (7.5–20.5)	15.5 (8.0–23.0)	0.343
Survival discharge	111 (75.0)	58 (67.4)	0.228
Sepsis	n=55	n=31
28-Day mortality	17 (30.9)	11 (35.5)	0.811
Duration of ICU admission (day)	7.0 (4.0–13.5)	6.0 (4.0–12.0)	0.921
Duration of hospital admission (day)	14.0 (9.0–23.0)	16.0 (9.0–26.0)	0.871
Survival discharge	37 (67.3)	21 (67.7)	1.000
Mechanical ventilator	n=29	n=24
28-Day mortality	13 (44.8)	13 (54.2)	0.586
Duration of ICU admission (day)	11.0 (4.0–16.0)	5.5 (3.0–11.0)	0.066
Duration of hospital admission (day)	15.0 (6.0–25.0)	9.5 (3.0–18.0)	0.060
Survival discharge	16 (55.2)	10 (41.7)	0.412
CRRT	n=28	n=26
28-Day mortality	9 (32.1)	6 (23.1)	0.550
Duration of ICU admission (day)	5.0 (4.0–14.0)	9.5 (5.0–15.0)	0.366
Duration of hospital admission (day)	16.0 (8.5–21.5)	19.0 (12.0–26.0)	0.298
Survival discharge	19 (67.9)	19 (73.1)	0.770

Table 1. Baseline characteristics of study population

Values are presented as median (interquartile range) or number (%).

Table 2. Presumed triggers for RBC transfusion

Values are presented as number (%).

RBC: red blood cell; Hb: hemoglobin; GI: gastrointestinal; CRRT: continuous renal replacement therapy.

Table 3. Outcomes in transfusion and non-transfusion groups

Values are presented as number (%) or median (interquartile range).

ICU: intensive care unit.

Table 4. Subgroup analysis of study outcomes in transfusion and non-transfusion groups

Values are presented as number (%) or median (interquartile range).

Hb: hemoglobin; ICU: intensive care unit; GI: gastrointestinal; CRRT: continuous renal replacement therapy.