van de Watering 1998.
Methods | Design: Parallel group RCT Country: The Netherlands Multicentre study: No Setting: Hospital Follow‐up: 60 days after surgery Unit of allocation: Patients Unit of analysis: Patients |
|
Participants | Inclusion criteria: Adults patients undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass grafting (CAGB) surgery, cardiac valve surgery or a combination of both, who had not received blood within the last 6 months. Exclusion criteria: None clearly reported
Packed cells without buffy coat: 306 Fresh‐filtered units: 305 Stored‐filtered units: 303
Main characteristics of patients: Age: Standard packed cells without buffy coat group = 64.4 ± 9.5 years; Fresh‐filtered units group = 62.9 ± 9.8 years. Stored‐filtered units group = 63.3 ± 9.1 years Percentage of men: Standard packed cells without buffy coat group = 72%; Fresh‐filtered units group = 74%. SF group = 68% Percentage of history of myocardial infarction: Standard packed cells without buffy coat group = 50.3%; Fresh‐filtered units group = 44.6%. Stored‐filtered units group = 46.4% Preoperative Hb: Standard packed cells without buffy coat group = 8.8 ± 0.9 mmol/L; Fresh‐filtered units group = 8.9 ± 0.9 mmol/L. Stored‐filtered units group = 8.8 ± 0.9 mmol/L Postoperative Hb: Standard packed cells without buffy coat group = 6.6 ± 0.7 mmol/L; Fresh‐filtered units group = 6.6 ± 0.7 mmol/L. Stored‐filtered units group = 6.5 ± 0.7 mmol/L |
|
Interventions |
Cointervention: Quote: "Antibiotic prophylaxis was given for 24 hours with CABG and for 48 hours with valve or combined surgery" (Page 563). |
|
Outcomes |
|
|
Notes | Trial registration: Not reported Funding: NPBI bv, Emmer‐Compascuum, The Netherlands Role of sponsor: Not reported A priori sample size estimation: unclear. Trial authors reported the only two criteria for sample size calculation (the proportion expected in each group). The dropout rate expected is not reported. Conducted: Between March 1992 and August 1994 Declared conflicts of interest: Not reported |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Quote: "patients were, by means of a randomizations list at the hospital transfusion service, randomly allocated..." (Page 563). |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Comment: Insufficient information to permit judgement of ‘low risk’ or ‘high risk’. |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Quote: "The surgeons and anesthetists were blind to the randomizations result" (Page 563). |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Quote: "The surgeons and anesthetists were blind to the randomization result" (Page 563). |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Comment: All patients transfused were analysed (Page 567). |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | The study protocol is not available but it is clear that the published reports include all expected outcomes, including those that were pre‐specified. |
Other bias | Low risk |