| 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 12 | ||
| 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 103 per 1000 | 69 per 1000 (12 to 383) | RR 0.67 (0.12 to 3.70) | 58 (1 RCT) | ⊕◯◯◯ VERY LOW 23 | |
| 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 f rom 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 f rom 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.