Summary of findings for the main comparison. Comparison of plasma transfusions versus no plasma transfusions when the INR is 1.5 prior to central venous catheter insertion.
| Comparison of plasma transfusions versus no plasma transfusions | ||||||
| Patient or population: people with abnormal coagulation requiring a central venous catheter Setting: In hospital Intervention: prophylactic plasma transfusion Comparison: no plasma transfusions | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with no plasma transfusions | Risk with prophylactic plasma transfusion | |||||
| Major procedure‐related bleeding follow‐up: 24 hours | There were no major procedure‐related bleeds in either of the study arms | Not estimable |
58 (1 RCT) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 1 2 | ||
| All‐cause mortality follow‐up: 30 days | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | Not reported |
|
| Respiratory deterioration attributable to transfusion‐associated circulatory overload (TACO), transfusion‐related acute lung injury (TRALI) or transfusion‐associated dyspnoea (TAD) | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | Not reported |
| Minor procedure‐related bleeding follow‐up: 24 hours | Study population | RR 0.67 (0.12 to 3.70) | 58 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOW 2 3 | ||
| 103 per 1000 | 69 per 1000 (12 to 383) | |||||
| Proportion of participants receiving plasma transfusions | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | Not reported |
| Line‐related complications | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | Not reported |
| Quality of life | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | Not reported |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect | ||||||
1 Downgraded by 2 for very serious imprecision. The included study was a small study and this is a rare outcome with no events in either study arm
2 Downgraded by 1 for serious risk of bias. There was a high risk of performance bias and other bias
3 Downgraded by 2 for very serious imprecision. The included study was a small study and the 95% confidence interval of the risk ratio includes the possibility of significant harm or significant benefit.