Context-dependent risks and benefits of transfusion in the critically ill

Abstract

Transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs) and other blood products to critically ill patients is common. Blood products are expensive, and not without risks. Recent evidence from high-quality multicenter randomized controlled trials confirmed the safety of allogeneic RBC transfusions, including the use of aged RBCs, and mild to moderate anemia for most stable and nonbleeding critically ill patients. Emerging evidence suggests that a liberal RBC transfusion target may have potential divergent effects on patient outcomes depending on their clinical context, with possible harms for patients with gastrointestinal bleeding due to portal hypertension and, conversely, benefits for patients with severe underlying cardiovascular diseases. Despite an apparent increased risk of bleeding in critically ill patients with deranged coagulation parameters and thrombocytopenia, recent studies suggested that fresh frozen plasma (FFP) and platelet transfusions may not be beneficial and, indeed, also not very effective in correcting these abnormalities. As for patients who have active severe critical bleeding, use of empirical 1:1:1 RBC: platelets: FFP transfusion appears justifiable in an attempt to reduce deaths as a result of exsanguination. In conjunction with platelet count and fibrinogen concentration, whole blood viscoelastic and platelet function tests are particularly useful to assist clinicians to rationalize FFP and platelet transfusions, when imminent death from exsanguination is not anticipated. Because the risks and benefits of blood product transfusion are heavily context-dependent, a thorough consideration of the characteristics and clinical status of the patients, in conjunction with viscoelastic and platelet function tests, is needed to rationalize the decision to transfuse (or withhold) blood products -very much in line with the move toward the practice of individualized or personalized medicine.