Background Definitions for massive transfusion (MT) vary widely between studies, contributing to challenges in interpretation of research findings and practice evaluation. In this first systematic review, we aimed to identify all MT definitions used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to date to inform the development of consensus definitions for MT. Methods We systematically searched the following databases for RCTs from inception until 11 August 2022: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Transfusion Evidence Library. Ongoing trials were sought from CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to fulfil all the following three criteria: (1) be an RCT; (2) include an adult patient population with major bleeding who had received, or were anticipated to receive, an MT in any clinical setting; and (3) specify a definition for MT as an inclusion criterion or outcome measure. Results Of the 8,458 distinct references identified, 30 trials were included for analysis (19 published, 11 ongoing). Trauma was the most common clinical setting in published trials, while for ongoing trials, it was obstetrics. A total of 15 different definitions of MT were identified across published and ongoing trials, varying greatly in cut-offs for volume transfused and time period. Almost all definitions specified the number of red blood cells (RBCs) within a set time period, with none including plasma, platelets or other haemostatic agents that are part of contemporary transfusion resuscitation. For completed trials, the most commonly used definition was transfusion of ≥ 10 RBC units in 24 h (9/19, all in trauma), while for ongoing trials it was 3–5 RBC units (n = 7), with the timing for transfusion being poorly defined, or in some trials not provided at all (n = 5). Conclusions Transfusion of ≥ 10 RBC units within 24 h was the most commonly used definition in published RCTs, while lower RBC volumes are being used in ongoing RCTs. Any consensus definitions should reflect the need to incorporate different blood components/products for MT and agree on whether a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach should be used across different clinical settings.
Objectives To compare survival and risk factors associated with mortality in common young‐onset dementias (YOD) including Huntington's disease. Methods This retrospective cohort study included inpatients from an Australian specialist neuropsychiatry service, over 20 years. Dementia diagnoses were based on consensus criteria and Huntington's disease (HD) was confirmed genetically. Mortality and cause of death were determined using linkage to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Death Index. Results There were 386 individuals with YOD included. The dementia types included frontotemporal dementia (FTD) (24.5%), HD (21.2%) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) (20.5%). 63% (n = 243) individuals had died. The longest median survival was for those who had HD, 18.8 years from symptom onset and with a reduced mortality risk compared to AD and FTD (hazard ratio 0.5). Overall, people with YOD had significantly increased mortality, of 5–8 times, compared to the general population. Females with a YOD had higher standardised mortality ratio compared to males (9.3 vs. 4.9) overall. The most frequent cause of death in those with HD was reported as HD, with other causes of death in the other YOD‐subtypes related to dementia and mental/behavioural disorders. Discussion This is the first Australian study to investigate survival and risk factors of mortality in people with YOD. YOD has a significant risk of death compared to the general population. Our findings provide useful clinical information for people affected by YOD as well as future planning and service provision.
Aims: To assess the effect of early intervention with electronic-based proactive specialist diabetes care in surgical inpatients on glycaemia and clinical outcomes. Methods: The Specialist Treatment of Inpatients: Caring for Diabetes (STOIC-D) Surgery randomised controlled trial (RCT) recruited consecutive adults admitted to surgical units of the Royal Melbourne Hospital (Australia) in 2021 with diabetes or blood glucose ≥200 mg/dL and length of stay (LOS) ≥24 hours. Intervention arm patients received remote proactive consultation by the inpatient diabetes service (IDS) in the electronic medical record (Epic®) within 24 hours of admission and, if escalation criteria were met, received a bedside consultation. Patients receiving standard care were reviewed by the IDS at the bedside only following referral. Insulin and non-insulin agents were used to target glucose 90-180 mg/dL. Outcomes included glucometrics, healthcare-associated infection (HAI), and mortality. Registration: ACTRN12620001303932. Results: 1,383 admissions met inclusion criteria; 689 received the intervention. The primary outcome of mean patient-day mean glucose was lower in the active (158.4 mg/dL, standard deviation [SD] 48.6) vs. control arm (162.0 mg/dL, SD 46.8, p<0.001). HAI (most commonly pneumonia) was lower in the active vs. control arm (11% vs. 16%, p=0.02). Mortality (2.4% vs. 4.2%, p=0.08) and LOS (10.7 vs. 10.0 days, p=0.26) were no different. The number needed to treat for HAI prevention was 22. Hypoglycaemia <72 mg/dL was not increased (1.0% active vs. 0.9% control, p=0.23). The IDS performed a bedside consultation in 333 (49%) of the active vs. 93 (14%) of the control arm. Conclusion: The STOIC-D Surgery trial is the largest RCT of a diabetes model-of-care intervention in non-critical care. Early, electronic-based specialist diabetes intervention significantly reduced patient-day mean glucose and HAIs in a surgical population. Disclosure R.Barmanray: None. L.J.Worth: None. S.Fourlanos: Advisory Panel; Viatris Inc., Pfizer Inc., Speaker's Bureau; Novo Nordisk, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly Alliance. M.Kyi: None. P.G.Colman: None. L.M.Rowan: None. L.Collins: None. L.E.Donaldson: Stock/Shareholder; Medtronic, Novo Nordisk. S.Montalto: None. E.Sun: None. M.V.H.Le: None.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.