Adherence to a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy in critically ill patients: An observational study.

BACKGROUND:Randomized controlled trials relatively consistently show that restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion strategies are safe and associated with similar outcomes compared to liberal transfusion strategies in critically ill patients. Based on these data, the general threshold for RBC transfusion was changed to 70 g/L at a 9-bed tertiary level intensive care unit in September 2020. Implementation measures included lectures, webinars and feedback during clinical practice. The aim of this study was to investigate how implementation of a restrictive transfusion strategy influenced RBC usage, haemoglobin trigger levels and adherence to prescribed trigger levels. METHODS:In this registry-based, observational study, critically ill adult patients without massive bleeding were included and divided into a pre-cohort, with admissions prior to the change of transfusion strategy, and a post-cohort, with admissions following the change of transfusion strategy. These cohorts were compared regarding key RBC transfusion-related variables. RESULTS:In total 5626 admissions were included in the analyses (pre-cohort n = 4373, post-cohort n = 1253). The median volume (interquartile range, IQR) of RBC transfusions per 100 admission days, in the pre-cohort was 6120 (4110-8110) mL versus 3010 (2890-4970) mL in the post-cohort (p < .001). This corresponds to an estimated median saving of 1128 € per 100 admission days after a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy was implemented. In total, 26% of the admissions in the pre-cohort and 19% in the post-cohort (p < .001) received RBC transfusion(s) during days 0-10. Both median (IQR) prescribed trigger levels (determined by intensivist) and actual haemoglobin trigger levels (i.e., levels prior to actual administration of transfusion) were higher in the pre- versus post-cohort (90 [80-100] vs. 80 [72-90] g/L, p < .001 and 89 [82-96] g/L vs. 83 [79-94], p < .001, respectively). Percentage of days without compliance with the prescribed transfusion trigger was higher in the pre-cohort than in the post-cohort (23% vs. 14%, p < .001). Sensitivity analyses, excluding patients with traumatic brain injury, ischemic heart disease and COVID-19 demonstrated similar results. CONCLUSIONS:Implementation of a restrictive transfusion trigger in a critical care setting resulted in lasting decreased RBC transfusion use and costs, decreased prescribed and actual haemoglobin trigger levels and improved adherence to prescribed haemoglobin trigger levels.