Evidence Hub

Liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategies in subarachnoid hemorrhage: a secondary analysis of the TRAIN study

Chahnez Taleb, Elisa Gouvêa Bogossian, Carla Bittencour Rynkowski, Kirsten Møller, Piet Lormans, Manuel Quintana Díaz, A. Caricato, L. Zattera et al.

Critical Care, 2025

190 participants · 15 citations

Abstract

The optimal hemoglobin (Hb) threshold to trigger red blood cell transfusions (RBCT) in subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) patients is unclear. This study evaluated the impact of liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategies on neurological outcome in patients with SAH. This is a pre-planned secondary analysis of the “TRansfusion Strategies in Acute brain INjured Patients” (TRAIN) study. We included all SAH patients from the original study that were randomized to receive RBCT when Hb levels dropped below 9 g/dL (liberal group) or 7 g/dL (restrictive group). The primary outcome was an unfavorable neurological outcome at 180 days, defined by a Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended score of 1–5. Of the 190 SAH patients in the trial, 188 (98.9%) had data available for the primary outcome, with 86 (45.3%) in the liberal group and 102 (53.6%) in the restrictive group. Patients in the liberal group were older than in the restrictive group, but otherwise had similar baseline characteristics. Patients in the liberal group received more RBCT and showed higher Hb levels over time. At 180 days, 57 (66.3%) patients in the liberal group and 78 (76.4%) in the restrictive group had unfavorable outcomes (risk ratio, RR 0.87; 95% confidence intervals, 95% CI 0.71–1.04). Patients in the liberal group had a significantly lower risk of cerebral ischemia (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.41–0.97). In a multivariate analysis, randomization to the liberal group was associated with a lower risk of unfavorable outcome (RR…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis. 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: 190 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