Evidence Hub

A Restrictive Versus a Liberal Transfusion Strategy in Patients With Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Secondary Analysis of TRAIN Randomized Clinical Trial

Chiara Faso, Elisa Gouvêa Bogossian, Carla Bittencourt Rynkowski, Kirsten Møller, Piet Lormans, Manuel Quintana Díaz, A. Caricato, W. Dąbrowski et al.

Stroke, 2025

144 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Red blood cell transfusions are commonly administered to anemic patients with spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH); however, the optimal hemoglobin threshold to initiate transfusion is uncertain in this population. Therefore, we aimed to assess the impact of 2 different hemoglobin thresholds to guide transfusion on the neurological outcome of anemic critically ill patients with ICH. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective, multicenter, phase 3 randomized study conducted in 72 intensive care units across 22 countries from 2017 to 2022. Eligible patients for the original trial had an acute brain injury, hemoglobin values ≤9 g/dL within the first 10 days after admission, and an expected intensive care unit stay of at least 72 hours; in this study, only patients with spontaneous ICH were assessed. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo a restrictive (transfusion triggered by hemoglobin ≤7 g/dL) or a liberal (transfusion triggered by hemoglobin ≤9 g/dL) strategy over a 28-day period. The primary outcome was the occurrence of an unfavorable neurological outcome, defined as a Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended score of 1 to 5, at 180 days following randomization. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients with spontaneous ICH were analyzed: 45.8% of them were men with a mean age of 58.4 (SD, 13.4). Mean Glasgow Coma Scale on admission was 7.3 (SD, 3.3), and 75.7% of patients had a volume of hematoma >30 mL. Among all patients, 73 were randomized to the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 144 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free