Abstract
Background and importance A quarter of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) have anemia. Although red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is routinely used in symptomatic anemia, there is no evidence on the benefit of blood transfusion in hemodynamically stable patients in the ED for patients requiring hospitalization.
Objective The study aimed to compare in-hospital length of stay (LOS) of patients with anemia between 70 and 90 g.L-1 transfused or not in ED.
Design Retrospective single-center study
Settings and participants All adult patients admitted to the ED of our university hospital with an initial hemoglobin level between 70 and 90 g.L-1, without hemorrhagic shock, who were hospitalized after ED admission.
Outcome measures and analysis A propensity score, comprising hemoglobin level, Charlson’s comorbidity index, clinical signs of anemia, the chronicity of anemia and hospitalization department was used to compare the LOS of patients transfused versus non-transfused in the ED.
Intervention RBC transfusion in the ED
Main results From January 1st to December 31st, 2022, 1 169 patients were screened of whom 569 (49%) were excluded, mostly due to discharge without hospitalization. The remaining 564 (48%) patients had a median age of 77 [68; 85] and 240 (43%) were women. Finally, 127 (23%) patients were transfused in ED. Transfused patients received more units of RBC during the whole hospitalization period (4 [3; 5] versus 2 [1; 3] than non-transfused patients (p< 0.01)). After propensity score matching, median LOS was 9 [5; 19] days for ED transfused patients and 8 [5; 15] days for non-ED transfused patients (median difference= -1 95% CI [-3; 2]; p=0.45).
Conclusion In patients with non-life-threatening anemia, RBC transfusion in the ED does not appear to reduce in-hospital LOS compared with transfusion in inpatient departments. Further studies are needed to identify patients requiring transfusion in ED.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
IRB of Nimes university hospital gave ethical approval for this work 23.05.02
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding
The authors declare no conflicts of interest. No funding was granted for this study.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
