4.3 Review

Optimal hemoglobin concentration in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, acute ischemic stroke and traumatic brain injury

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN CRITICAL CARE
卷 14, 期 2, 页码 156-162

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCC.0b013e3282f57577

关键词

brain; erythrocyte transfusion; red blood cells; storage time; stroke; subarachnoid hemorrhage; traumatic brain injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review The review outlines recent clinical and experimental studies regarding the effects of red blood-cell transfusion on clinical outcome in neurocritical patients, including patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage, acute ischemic stroke and traumatic brain injury. Optimal hemoglobin transfusion trigger and the role of other transfusion indicators for neurocritical patients are discussed. Recent findings Acute anemia (hemoglobin levels near 7 g/dl) is well tolerated by healthy subjects, but extreme anemia might negatively affect clinical outcome of neurocritical patients. Conversely, high hemoglobin levels, attained by means other than red blood-cell transfusion, improve clinical outcome, whereas red blood-cell transfusion is associated with poorer clinical outcome (mortality, length of stay and disability) in patients presenting subarachnoid hemorrhage, acute ischemic stroke and traumatic brain injury. Studies defining the optimal hemoglobin concentration in neurocritical patients are lacking, but a restrictive transfusion policy seems to be safe and is often recommended. In the near future, signals coming from the brain, such as brain tissue oxygen tension and regional cerebral oxygen saturation, might potentially be developed into transfusion triggers. Summary Both severe anemia and red blood-cell transfusion may negatively influence clinical outcome in neurocritical patients. Acceptance of low hemoglobin concentrations may be justified by avoiding negative transfusion effects. No evidence-based transfusion trigger in neurocritical patients can be recommended.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据