Premium
Is there a “magic” hemoglobin number? Clinical decision support promoting restrictive blood transfusion practices
Author(s) -
Goodnough Lawrence Tim,
Shah Neil
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
american journal of hematology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.456
H-Index - 105
eISSN - 1096-8652
pISSN - 0361-8609
DOI - 10.1002/ajh.24101
Subject(s) - medicine , intensive care medicine , blood management , blood transfusion , clinical trial , anemia , red blood cell , red blood cell transfusion , surgery
Blood transfusion has been identified as one of the most frequently performed therapeutic procedures, with a significant percentage of transfusions identified to be inappropriate. Recent key clinical trials in adults have provided Level 1 evidence to support restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practices. However, some advocates have attempted to identify a “correct” Hb threshold for RBC transfusion; whereas others assert that management of anemia, including transfusion decisions, must take into account clinical patient variables, rather than simply one diagnostic laboratory test. The heterogeneity of guidelines for blood transfusion by a number of medical societies reflects this controversy. Clinical decision support (CDS) uses a Hb threshold number in a smart Best Practices Alert (BPA) upon physician order, to trigger a concurrent utilization self‐review for whether blood transfusion therapy is appropriate. This review summarizes Level 1 evidence in seven key clinical trials in adults that support restrictive transfusion practices, along strategies made possible by CDS that have demonstrated value in improving blood utilization by promoting restrictive transfusion practices. Am. J. Hematol. 90:927–933, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.