Efficacy and Safety of Blood Transfusion Protocols in the Treatment of Myocardial Infarction: A Review of Restrictive and Liberal Approaches.

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a leading cause of death worldwide, and anemia in patients following AMI is quite common. Blood transfusions are one means of treating anemia, but once again, it is surrounded by debate over the best approach for transfusion: whether it is restrictive or liberal. This review assesses the efficacy and safety of a restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion strategy in AMI patients. Literature searches of the existing database were made with a view to retrieving RCTs, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines pertaining to both restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies for comparison of outcomes. Evidence suggests that this restrictive approach brings no patient harm, except perhaps in high-risk subgroups such as larger cardiovascular comorbidities. Key trials have shown that a restrictive strategy is at least as effective as a liberal strategy for most patients, including TRICC, TRACS, FOCUS, MINT, TITRe2, and REALITY Trials. Specifically, particular populations, especially those with pre-existing heart disease, may benefit from higher hemoglobin thresholds to prevent adverse outcomes. The best transfusion strategy should be tailored for each patient based on his/her personal factors, above all in cardiovascular health. A more restrictive transfusion strategy was effective and safe for the general population, but the subgroup of patients with very poor cardiovascular disease may require a more liberal approach. Further studies with better management guidelines are warranted to guide transfusion practices for optimal care in AMI patients.