Efficacy and safety of erythropoietin and iron therapy to reduce red blood cell transfusion in surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Purpose: Iron restricted anemia is prevalent in surgical patients and is associated with an increased risk of allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion and adverse events. Treatment of anemia includes oral and intravenous iron and erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs). More recent studies have focused on the use of intravenous iron as the primary approach to treating anemia. Nevertheless, the optimal treatment strategy for anemia remains to be established. Our primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ESA and iron therapy relative to iron therapy alone in reducing RBC transfusion in surgical patients. Source: We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 2018. We included randomized-controlled trials in which adult surgical patients received an ESA and iron, vs iron alone, prior to cardiac and non-cardiac surgery. Our primary outcome was RBC transfusion rate. Secondary outcomes included hemoglobin concentration (post-treatment and postoperatively), number of RBC units transfused, mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), renal dysfunction, pulmonary embolism (PE), and deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Principal findings: In total, 25 studies (4,719 participants) were included. Erythropoiesis stimulating agents and iron therapy reduced RBC transfusion relative to iron therapy (relative risk [RR] 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.71) without any change in mortality (RR 1.31; 95% CI, 0.80 to 2.16), stroke (RR 1.91; 95% CI, 0.63 to 5.76), MI (RR 1.12; 95% CI, 0.50 to 2.50), renal dysfunction (RR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.26), PE (RR 0.92; 95% CI, 0.15 to 5.83), or DVT (RR 1.48; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.31). Conclusion: Administration of ESA and iron therapy reduced the risk for RBC transfusion compared with iron therapy alone in patients undergoing cardiac and non-cardiac surgery. Nevertheless, publication bias and heterogeneity reduces the confidence of the finding. Although the analysis was probably under-powered for some outcomes, no difference in the incidence of serious adverse events was observed with ESA and iron compared with iron alone. Further large prospective trials are required to confirm these findings.