Myocardial InfarctionREALITYNCT02648113
Cost-effectiveness and Cost-utility of Liberal vs Restrictive Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategies in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anaemia.
A study testing Restrictive transfusion, Liberal transfusion and red blood transfusion in people with Myocardial Infarction and Anemia, run by Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris at 2 sites in 2 countries.
Trial summary
Anemia in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) is a relatively frequent issue, resulting in poorer outcome. There is equipoise regarding which transfusion strategy is best, and there is an international consensus on the urgent need for a randomized trial. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Myocardial Infarction, Anemia, Blood Transfusion
- What is being tested?
- Restrictive transfusion, Liberal transfusion and red blood transfusion
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 668 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesin 2 countries
- Study dates
- 23 Mar 2016to 10 Sep 2020
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Aged ≥ 18 years
- Recent acute myocardial infarction, with or without ST- segment elevation, with a combination of ischemic symptoms occurring in the past 48 hours,before the MI related admission, and elevation of biomarkers of myocardial injury (troponin)
- Anemia Hb ≤ 10g / dL but > 7 g/dL on Hb, measured at any time during the index hospital admission for MI.
- Written informed consent
- Coverage for medical insurance.
Who cannot join
- Shock (SBP < 90 mmHg with clinical signs of low output or patients requiring inotropic agents)
- MI occurring post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or post-coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) (i.e. type IV or V Acute MI according to the 2012 Universal Definition of MI
- Life-threatening or massive ongoing bleeding (as judged by the investigator)
- Any blood transfusion in the previous 30-days
- any known malignant hematologic disease Note: Sickle cell disease, thalassemia and anemia due to chronic renal failure (even under EPO) are not an exclusion criteria
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 2 countries.
2 sites in 2 countries
About this study
Official title: Cost-effectiveness and Cost-utility of Liberal vs Restrictive Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategies in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anaemia. The REALITY (REstrictive And LIberal Transfusion Strategies in Patients With Acute mYocardial Infarction) Randomized Trial.
Anemia in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) is a relatively frequent issue, resulting in poorer outcome. There is equipoise regarding which transfusion strategy is best, and there is an international consensus on the urgent need for a randomized trial.
The investigators hypothesize that a "restrictive" transfusion strategy is at least non-inferior to a "liberal" transfusion strategy on 30-day outcomes of MI patients with anemia. Given the costs and risks of transfusion, a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis becomes key to determining the role of each strategy.
Read the detailed description
Anemia is frequent in patients with myocardial infarction (MI). The antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents used for MI treatment increase the risk of bleeding, which in turn increases the risk of ischemia and mortality. Anemia is an independent predictor of cardiac events in this setting. In the "FAST-MI 2010" nationwide registry, the prevalence of anemia (defined as Hb <10g/dL) at admission was 3% and impacted mortality. Whether this risk can be overcome by transfusion is debated.
In theory, transfusion should increase oxygen delivery to the myocardium. However, recent data suggest that oxygen delivery is not increased in patients receiving transfusion, that red blood cells are rapidly depleted of nitric oxide during storage and that, conversely, transfusion may increase platelet activation and aggregation and these consequences appear potentially even more deleterious in patients with cardiovascular disease. In the general population without cardiovascular disease of medical and surgical patients, the role of liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategies has been explored by a series of randomized trials, which have led to a consensus to withhold blood transfusions until a threshold of 7 to 8 g/dl hemoglobin is reached.
Among patients with myocardial infarction, however, both the deleterious consequences of anemia and the risks of transfusion may be greater, which leads to lingering uncertainty regarding the role of liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategies in this setting. The clinical data are observational and contradictory. Conversely, a large meta-analysis (>200 000 patients) reported a higher risk of mortality and recurrent MI in MI patients who received transfusion. More recently, a careful observational study has shown that the majority of patients undergoing blood transfusion cannot be matched with non-transfused patients due to their markedly different clinical profiles, indicating that observational studies cannot reliable establish the benefits or risks of transfusion because they are hopelessly influenced by selection bias. These results strongly highlight the need for randomized trials to establish the role of transfusion during acute MI, a call for a randomized trial that has been echoed by several thought leaders in the field in recent years. Two small randomized trials (respectively 45 and 110 patients) comparing liberal vs. restrictive transfusion strategies in MI showed no clear difference in clinical outcomes but were both underpowered.
The only guideline regarding management of anemia in this setting is from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines on non-ST segment elevation - acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), which advise blood transfusion only if the hemodynamic status is compromised or the hemoglobin level is <7g/dL. As a result, there is wide variation in clinical practice. There is therefore equipoise regarding which transfusion strategy is best.
Hypothesis:
We hypothesize that a "restrictive" transfusion strategy (triggered by Hb <= 8 g/ dL) will be clinically non-inferior to a "liberal" transfusion strategy (triggered by Hb <= 10g/ dL) but will be less costly.
Main objective:
The main objective of the study is to compare cost-effectiveness of restrictive (triggered by Hb <= 8 g/ dL) vs liberal (triggered by Hb <= 10g/ dL) red blood transfusion strategies for patients with acute MI and anemia (7g /dL < Hb <= 10g / dL).
Secondary objective(s):
- The key secondary objective is to perform cost-utility analyses at 30-days and 1 year.
- The main clinical objective will be to determine whether a restrictive transfusion strategy is clinically non-inferior to a liberal transfusion strategy in terms of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days, defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal recurrent MI, and emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia.
- A tertiary objective will be to compare major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year, since the impact of transfusion strategies on MACE may be delayed, or conversely, an initial benefit of either strategy may become lost over the first year.
- Conditions
- Myocardial Infarction, Anemia, Blood Transfusion
- Being tested
- Restrictive transfusion, Liberal transfusion, red blood transfusion
- Keywords
- Myocardial Infarction, Anemia, Blood Transfusion
- Medical subject headings
- Myocardial Infarction, Anemia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Restrictive transfusionProcedure or surgery
Transfusions are withheld unless Hb is <= 8 g/dL, with a target Hb of 8 to 10 g /dL
Liberal transfusionProcedure or surgery
transfusions are allowed as soon as Hb <= 10 g/dL with a target of 11 g /dL
red blood transfusionBiological
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Restrictive transfusion strategy | Experimental | Transfusions are withheld unless Hb is <= 8 g/dL, with a target Hb of 8 to 10 g /dL Receives: Procedure: Restrictive transfusion; Biological: red blood transfusion |
| Liberal transfusion strategy | Experimental | Transfusions are allowed as soon as Hb <= 10 g/dL with a target of 11 g /dL. Receives: Procedure: Liberal transfusion; Biological: red blood transfusion |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Cost-effectiveness ratio at 30 days
The primary endpoint is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at 30-days, using the composite endpoint (30-day composite of all-cause death, non fatal stroke, nonfatal recurrent MI, and emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia) as the effectiveness criterion
Measured: 30 days
Secondary outcomes (3)
Cost-effectiveness ratio at 1 year
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at 1 year, using the composite endpoint (1-year composite of all-cause death, non fatal stroke, nonfatal recurrent MI, and emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia) as the effectiveness criterion
Measured: 1 year
Clinically non inferiority at 30 days
The main clinical endpoint is Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) at 30-days defined as the 30-day composite of all-cause death, non-fatal recurrent MI, non-fatal stroke and emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia, (all of the components of this composite clinical outcome will be analyzed separately as secondary endpoints of their own)
Measured: 30 days
Clinically non inferiority at 1 year
The main clinical endpoint is Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) at 30-days defined as the 30-day composite of all-cause death, non-fatal recurrent MI, non-fatal stroke and emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia, (all of the components of this composite clinical outcome will be analyzed separately as secondary endpoints of their own)
Measured: 1 year
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted6 Jan 2016 (estimated)
- Study start23 Mar 2016
- Primary completion10 Oct 2019
- Study completion10 Sep 2020
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (45)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Myocardial InfarctionStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 668 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Philippe-Gabriel STEG, Principal investigator, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02648113
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- K140705
- Other IDs
- 2015-A00360-49
- Acronym
- REALITY
- Status last verified
- Mar 2022
- First submitted
- 5 Jan 2016
- Last updated
- 12 Apr 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Sabatine MS, Morrow DA, Giugliano RP, Burton PB, Murphy SA, McCabe CH, Gibson CM, Braunwald E. Association of hemoglobin levels with clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndromes. Circulation. 2005 Apr 26;111(16):2042-9. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000162477.70955.5F. Epub 2005 Apr 11.
PubMed 15824203Hanssen M, Cottin Y, Khalife K, Hammer L, Goldstein P, Puymirat E, Mulak G, Drouet E, Pace B, Schultz E, Bataille V, Ferrieres J, Simon T, Danchin N; FAST-MI 2010 Investigators. French Registry on Acute ST-elevation and non ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction 2010. FAST-MI 2010. Heart. 2012 May;98(9):699-705. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-301700.
PubMed 22523054Silvain J, Pena A, Cayla G, Brieger D, Bellemain-Appaix A, Chastre T, Vignalou JB, Beygui F, Barthelemy O, Collet JP, Montalescot G. Impact of red blood cell transfusion on platelet activation and aggregation in healthy volunteers: results of the TRANSFUSION study. Eur Heart J. 2010 Nov;31(22):2816-21. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq209. Epub 2010 Jun 29.
PubMed 20591842Silvain J, Abtan J, Kerneis M, Martin R, Finzi J, Vignalou JB, Barthelemy O, O'Connor SA, Luyt CE, Brechot N, Mercadier A, Brugier D, Galier S, Collet JP, Chastre J, Montalescot G. Impact of red blood cell transfusion on platelet aggregation and inflammatory response in anemic coronary and noncoronary patients: the TRANSFUSION-2 study (impact of transfusion of red blood cell on platelet activation and aggregation studied with flow cytometry use and light transmission aggregometry). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Apr 8;63(13):1289-1296. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.029. Epub 2013 Dec 18.
PubMed 24361322Yeh RW, Wimmer NJ. Blood transfusion in myocardial infarction: opening old wounds for comparative-effectiveness research. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Aug 26;64(8):820-2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.05.041. No abstract available.
PubMed 25145527Carson JL, Grossman BJ, Kleinman S, Tinmouth AT, Marques MB, Fung MK, Holcomb JB, Illoh O, Kaplan LJ, Katz LM, Rao SV, Roback JD, Shander A, Tobian AA, Weinstein R, Swinton McLaughlin LG, Djulbegovic B; Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee of the AABB. Red blood cell transfusion: a clinical practice guideline from the AABB*. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jul 3;157(1):49-58. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-1-201206190-00429.
PubMed 22751760Carson JL, Carless PA, Hebert PC. Outcomes using lower vs higher hemoglobin thresholds for red blood cell transfusion. JAMA. 2013 Jan 2;309(1):83-4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.50429.
PubMed 23280228Wu WC, Rathore SS, Wang Y, Radford MJ, Krumholz HM. Blood transfusion in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2001 Oct 25;345(17):1230-6. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa010615.
PubMed 11680442Chatterjee S, Wetterslev J, Sharma A, Lichstein E, Mukherjee D. Association of blood transfusion with increased mortality in myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis and diversity-adjusted study sequential analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Jan 28;173(2):132-9. doi: 10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.1001.
PubMed 23266500Salisbury AC, Reid KJ, Marso SP, Amin AP, Alexander KP, Wang TY, Spertus JA, Kosiborod M. Blood transfusion during acute myocardial infarction: association with mortality and variability across hospitals. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Aug 26;64(8):811-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.05.040.
PubMed 25145526Rao SV, Sherwood MW. Isn't it about time we learned how to use blood transfusion in patients with ischemic heart disease? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Apr 8;63(13):1297-1299. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.028. Epub 2013 Dec 18. No abstract available.
PubMed 24361316Cooper HA, Rao SV, Greenberg MD, Rumsey MP, McKenzie M, Alcorn KW, Panza JA. Conservative versus liberal red cell transfusion in acute myocardial infarction (the CRIT Randomized Pilot Study). Am J Cardiol. 2011 Oct 15;108(8):1108-11. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.06.014. Epub 2011 Jul 24.
PubMed 21791325Carson JL, Brooks MM, Abbott JD, Chaitman B, Kelsey SF, Triulzi DJ, Srinivas V, Menegus MA, Marroquin OC, Rao SV, Noveck H, Passano E, Hardison RM, Smitherman T, Vagaonescu T, Wimmer NJ, Williams DO. Liberal versus restrictive transfusion thresholds for patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease. Am Heart J. 2013 Jun;165(6):964-971.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2013.03.001. Epub 2013 Apr 8.
PubMed 23708168Hamm CW, Bassand JP, Agewall S, Bax J, Boersma E, Bueno H, Caso P, Dudek D, Gielen S, Huber K, Ohman M, Petrie MC, Sonntag F, Uva MS, Storey RF, Wijns W, Zahger D; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines. ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2011 Dec;32(23):2999-3054. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr236. Epub 2011 Aug 26. No abstract available.
PubMed 21873419Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, Simoons ML, Chaitman BR, White HD; Writing Group on the Joint ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF Task Force for the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction; Thygesen K, Alpert JS, White HD, Jaffe AS, Katus HA, Apple FS, Lindahl B, Morrow DA, Chaitman BA, Clemmensen PM, Johanson P, Hod H, Underwood R, Bax JJ, Bonow RO, Pinto F, Gibbons RJ, Fox KA, Atar D, Newby LK, Galvani M, Hamm CW, Uretsky BF, Steg PG, Wijns W, Bassand JP, Menasche P, Ravkilde J, Ohman EM, Antman EM, Wallentin LC, Armstrong PW, Simoons ML, Januzzi JL, Nieminen MS, Gheorghiade M, Filippatos G, Luepker RV, Fortmann SP, Rosamond WD, Levy D, Wood D, Smith SC, Hu D, Lopez-Sendon JL, Robertson RM, Weaver D, Tendera M, Bove AA, Parkhomenko AN, Vasilieva EJ, Mendis S; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG). Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2012 Oct;33(20):2551-67. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs184. Epub 2012 Aug 24. No abstract available.
PubMed 22922414
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 12 Apr 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Cost-effectiveness and Cost-utility of Liberal vs Restrictive Red Blood Cell Transfusion Strategies in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anaemia. The REALITY (REstrictive And LIberal Transfusion Strategies in Patients With Acute mYocardial Infarction) Randomized Trial.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02648113
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- REALITY / K140705
- Conditions
- Myocardial Infarction, Anemia, Blood Transfusion
- Keywords
- Myocardial Infarction, Anemia, Blood Transfusion
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 668 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de ParisUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 23 Mar 2016 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 10 Oct 2019 (actual)
- Study completion
- 10 Sep 2020 (actual)
- First posted
- 6 Jan 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Anemia in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) is a relatively frequent issue, resulting in poorer outcome. There is equipoise regarding which transfusion strategy is best, and there is an international consensus on the urgent need for a randomized trial.
The investigators hypothesize that a "restrictive" transfusion strategy is at least non-inferior to a "liberal" transfusion strategy on 30-day outcomes of MI patients with anemia. Given the costs and risks of transfusion, a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis becomes key to determining the role of each strategy.
Detailed description
Anemia is frequent in patients with myocardial infarction (MI). The antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents used for MI treatment increase the risk of bleeding, which in turn increases the risk of ischemia and mortality. Anemia is an independent predictor of cardiac events in this setting. In the "FAST-MI 2010" nationwide registry, the prevalence of anemia (defined as Hb <10g/dL) at admission was 3% and impacted mortality. Whether this risk can be overcome by transfusion is debated.
In theory, transfusion should increase oxygen delivery to the myocardium. However, recent data suggest that oxygen delivery is not increased in patients receiving transfusion, that red blood cells are rapidly depleted of nitric oxide during storage and that, conversely, transfusion may increase platelet activation and aggregation and these consequences appear potentially even more deleterious in patients with cardiovascular disease. In the general population without cardiovascular disease of medical and surgical patients, the role of liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategies has been explored by a series of randomized trials, which have led to a consensus to withhold blood transfusions until a threshold of 7 to 8 g/dl hemoglobin is reached.
Among patients with myocardial infarction, however, both the deleterious consequences of anemia and the risks of transfusion may be greater, which leads to lingering uncertainty regarding the role of liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategies in this setting. The clinical data are observational and contradictory. Conversely, a large meta-analysis (>200 000 patients) reported a higher risk of mortality and recurrent MI in MI patients who received transfusion. More recently, a careful observational study has shown that the majority of patients undergoing blood transfusion cannot be matched with non-transfused patients due to their markedly different clinical profiles, indicating that observational studies cannot reliable establish the benefits or risks of transfusion because they are hopelessly influenced by selection bias. These results strongly highlight the need for randomized trials to establish the role of transfusion during acute MI, a call for a randomized trial that has been echoed by several thought leaders in the field in recent years. Two small randomized trials (respectively 45 and 110 patients) comparing liberal vs. restrictive transfusion strategies in MI showed no clear difference in clinical outcomes but were both underpowered.
The only guideline regarding management of anemia in this setting is from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines on non-ST segment elevation - acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), which advise blood transfusion only if the hemodynamic status is compromised or the hemoglobin level is <7g/dL. As a result, there is wide variation in clinical practice. There is therefore equipoise regarding which transfusion strategy is best.
Hypothesis:
We hypothesize that a "restrictive" transfusion strategy (triggered by Hb <= 8 g/ dL) will be clinically non-inferior to a "liberal" transfusion strategy (triggered by Hb <= 10g/ dL) but will be less costly.
Main objective:
The main objective of the study is to compare cost-effectiveness of restrictive (triggered by Hb <= 8 g/ dL) vs liberal (triggered by Hb <= 10g/ dL) red blood transfusion strategies for patients with acute MI and anemia (7g /dL < Hb <= 10g / dL).
Secondary objective(s):
- The key secondary objective is to perform cost-utility analyses at 30-days and 1 year.
- The main clinical objective will be to determine whether a restrictive transfusion strategy is clinically non-inferior to a liberal transfusion strategy in terms of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 30 days, defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal recurrent MI, and emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia.
- A tertiary objective will be to compare major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year, since the impact of transfusion strategies on MACE may be delayed, or conversely, an initial benefit of either strategy may become lost over the first year.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Restrictive transfusion strategy | Experimental | Procedure: Restrictive transfusion, Biological: red blood transfusionTransfusions are withheld unless Hb is <= 8 g/dL, with a target Hb of 8 to 10 g /dL |
| Liberal transfusion strategy | Experimental | Procedure: Liberal transfusion, Biological: red blood transfusionTransfusions are allowed as soon as Hb <= 10 g/dL with a target of 11 g /dL. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Aged ≥ 18 years
- Recent acute myocardial infarction, with or without ST- segment elevation, with a combination of ischemic symptoms occurring in the past 48 hours,before the MI related admission, and elevation of biomarkers of myocardial injury (troponin)
- Anemia Hb ≤ 10g / dL but > 7 g/dL on Hb, measured at any time during the index hospital admission for MI.
- Written informed consent
- Coverage for medical insurance.
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Shock (SBP < 90 mmHg with clinical signs of low output or patients requiring inotropic agents)
- MI occurring post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or post-coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) (i.e. type IV or V Acute MI according to the 2012 Universal Definition of MI
- Life-threatening or massive ongoing bleeding (as judged by the investigator)
- Any blood transfusion in the previous 30-days
- any known malignant hematologic disease Note: Sickle cell disease, thalassemia and anemia due to chronic renal failure (even under EPO) are not an exclusion criteria
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Restrictive transfusionTransfusions are withheld unless Hb is <= 8 g/dL, with a target Hb of 8 to 10 g /dL | Procedure or surgery | Restrictive transfusion strategy |
| Liberal transfusiontransfusions are allowed as soon as Hb <= 10 g/dL with a target of 11 g /dL | Procedure or surgery | Liberal transfusion strategy |
| red blood transfusion | Biological | Liberal transfusion strategy, Restrictive transfusion strategy |
Primary outcome
Cost-effectiveness ratio at 30 days
Time frame: 30 days
The primary endpoint is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at 30-days, using the composite endpoint (30-day composite of all-cause death, non fatal stroke, nonfatal recurrent MI, and emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia) as the effectiveness criterion
3 secondary outcomes
Cost-effectiveness ratio at 1 year
Time frame: 1 year
Clinically non inferiority at 30 days
Time frame: 30 days
Clinically non inferiority at 1 year
Time frame: 1 year
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 12 Apr 2022.
- Background: PubMed 15824203Sabatine MS, Morrow DA, Giugliano RP, Burton PB, Murphy SA, McCabe CH, Gibson CM, Braunwald E. Association of hemoglobin levels with clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndromes. Circulation. 2005 Apr 26;111(16):2042-9. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000162477.70955.5F. Epub 2005 Apr 11.
- Background: PubMed 22523054Hanssen M, Cottin Y, Khalife K, Hammer L, Goldstein P, Puymirat E, Mulak G, Drouet E, Pace B, Schultz E, Bataille V, Ferrieres J, Simon T, Danchin N; FAST-MI 2010 Investigators. French Registry on Acute ST-elevation and non ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction 2010. FAST-MI 2010. Heart. 2012 May;98(9):699-705. doi: 10.1136/heartjnl-2012-301700.
- Background: PubMed 20591842Silvain J, Pena A, Cayla G, Brieger D, Bellemain-Appaix A, Chastre T, Vignalou JB, Beygui F, Barthelemy O, Collet JP, Montalescot G. Impact of red blood cell transfusion on platelet activation and aggregation in healthy volunteers: results of the TRANSFUSION study. Eur Heart J. 2010 Nov;31(22):2816-21. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehq209. Epub 2010 Jun 29.
- Background: PubMed 24361322Silvain J, Abtan J, Kerneis M, Martin R, Finzi J, Vignalou JB, Barthelemy O, O'Connor SA, Luyt CE, Brechot N, Mercadier A, Brugier D, Galier S, Collet JP, Chastre J, Montalescot G. Impact of red blood cell transfusion on platelet aggregation and inflammatory response in anemic coronary and noncoronary patients: the TRANSFUSION-2 study (impact of transfusion of red blood cell on platelet activation and aggregation studied with flow cytometry use and light transmission aggregometry). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Apr 8;63(13):1289-1296. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.029. Epub 2013 Dec 18.
- Background: PubMed 25145527Yeh RW, Wimmer NJ. Blood transfusion in myocardial infarction: opening old wounds for comparative-effectiveness research. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Aug 26;64(8):820-2. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.05.041. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 22751760Carson JL, Grossman BJ, Kleinman S, Tinmouth AT, Marques MB, Fung MK, Holcomb JB, Illoh O, Kaplan LJ, Katz LM, Rao SV, Roback JD, Shander A, Tobian AA, Weinstein R, Swinton McLaughlin LG, Djulbegovic B; Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee of the AABB. Red blood cell transfusion: a clinical practice guideline from the AABB*. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jul 3;157(1):49-58. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-1-201206190-00429.
- Background: PubMed 23280228Carson JL, Carless PA, Hebert PC. Outcomes using lower vs higher hemoglobin thresholds for red blood cell transfusion. JAMA. 2013 Jan 2;309(1):83-4. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.50429.
- Background: PubMed 11680442Wu WC, Rathore SS, Wang Y, Radford MJ, Krumholz HM. Blood transfusion in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2001 Oct 25;345(17):1230-6. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa010615.
- Background: PubMed 23266500Chatterjee S, Wetterslev J, Sharma A, Lichstein E, Mukherjee D. Association of blood transfusion with increased mortality in myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis and diversity-adjusted study sequential analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Jan 28;173(2):132-9. doi: 10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.1001.
- Background: PubMed 25145526Salisbury AC, Reid KJ, Marso SP, Amin AP, Alexander KP, Wang TY, Spertus JA, Kosiborod M. Blood transfusion during acute myocardial infarction: association with mortality and variability across hospitals. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Aug 26;64(8):811-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2014.05.040.
- Background: PubMed 24361316Rao SV, Sherwood MW. Isn't it about time we learned how to use blood transfusion in patients with ischemic heart disease? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Apr 8;63(13):1297-1299. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.11.028. Epub 2013 Dec 18. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 21791325Cooper HA, Rao SV, Greenberg MD, Rumsey MP, McKenzie M, Alcorn KW, Panza JA. Conservative versus liberal red cell transfusion in acute myocardial infarction (the CRIT Randomized Pilot Study). Am J Cardiol. 2011 Oct 15;108(8):1108-11. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.06.014. Epub 2011 Jul 24.
Related trials for Myocardial Infarction
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Roxadustat and Myocardial Injury After Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery
Coronary Artery Disease, Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
Active, not recruitingObservational study
A Longitudinal Cohort Study to Evaluate Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Disease in Haiti
Hypertension, Diabetes
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
A Study of Inclisiran to Prevent Cardiovascular Events in High-risk Primary Prevention Patients.
Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease
Enrolling by invitation
The DANE-HEART Trial - Computed Tomography Coronary Angiography for Primary Prevention
Coronary Atherosclerosis and Other Heart Disease, Cardiovascular Diseases
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Elicit Drugs in Myocardial Infarction
Young Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Philippe-Gabriel STEG principal investigator
Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
2 sites in 2 countries: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Restrictive transfusion, Liberal transfusion and red blood transfusion in people with Myocardial Infarction and Anemia, run by Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris at 2 sites in 2 countries.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 12 Apr 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in France, Spain. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Cost-effectiveness ratio at 30 days (time frame: 30 days). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02648113, which also lists 45 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 12 Apr 2022.