Abstract:An estimated one‐quarter to one‐half of people diagnosed with haematological malignancies experience anaemia. There are different strategies for red blood cell (RBC) transfusions to treat anaemia. A restrictive transfusion strategy permits a lower haemoglobin (Hb) level whereas a liberal transfusion strategy aims to maintain a higher Hb. The most effective and safest strategy is unknown. To determine the efficacy and safety of restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategies for people diagnosed with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without a haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non‐randomised studies (NRS) in MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1982), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) ( The Cochrane Library 2023, Issue 2), and eight other databases (including three trial registries) to 21 March 2023. We also searched grey literature and contacted experts in transfusion for additional trials. There were no language, date or publication status restrictions. We included RCTs and prospective NRS that evaluated restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion strategies in children or adults with malignant haematological disorders receiving intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without HSCT. Two authors independently screened references, full‐text reports of potentially relevant studies, extracted data from the studies, and assessed the risk of bias. Any disagreement was discussed and resolved with a third review author. Dichotomous outcomes were presented as a risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Narrative syntheses were used for heterogeneous outcome measures. Review Manager Web was used to meta‐analyse the data. Main outcomes of interest included: all‐cause mortality at 31 to 100 days, quality of life, number of participants with any bleeding, number of participants with clinically significant bleeding, serious infections, length of hospital admission (days) and hospital readmission at 0 to 3 months. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Nine studies met eligibility; eight RCTs and one NRS. Six hundred and forty‐four participants were included from six completed RCTs (n = 560) and one completed NRS (n = 84), with two ongoing RCTs consisting of 294 participants (260 adult and 34 paediatric) pending inclusion. Only one completed RCT included children receiving HSCT (n = 6); the other five RCTs only included adults: 239 with acute leukaemia receiving chemotherapy and 315 receiving HSCT (166 allogeneic and 149 autologous). The transfusion threshold ranged from 70 g/L to 80 g/L for restrictive and from 80 g/L to 120 g/L for liberal strategies. Effects were reported in the summary of findings tables only for the trials that included adults to reduce indirectness due to the limited evidence contributed by the prematurely terminated paediatric trial. Evidence from RCTs Overall, there may be little to no difference in the number of participants who die within 31 to 100 days using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy, but the evidence is very uncertain (three studies; 451 participants; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.70, P=0.99; very low‐certainty evidence ). There may be little to no difference in quality of life at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy, but the evidence is very uncertain (three studies; 431 participants; analysis unable to be completed due to heterogeneity; very low‐certainty evidence ). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who suffer from any bleeding at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (three studies; 448 participants; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06, P = 0.22; low‐certainty evidence ). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who suffer from clinically significant bleeding at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (four studies; 511 participants; RR: 0.94, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.19, P = 0.60; low‐certainty evidence ). There may be little to no difference in the number of participants who experience serious infections at 0 to 3 months using a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy (three studies, 451 participants; RR: 1.20, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.55, P = 0.17; low‐certainty evidence ). A restrictive transfusion strategy likely results in little to no difference in the length of hospital admission at 0 to 3 months compared to a liberal strategy (two studies; 388 participants; analysis unable to be completed due to heterogeneity in reporting; moderate‐certainty evidence ). There may be little to no difference between hospital readmission using a restrictive transfusion strategy compar -Abstract Truncated-

Transfusion strategy trials excluding patients transfused outside the trial study period are more likely to report a trend favouring restrictive strategies: a meta-analysis

Restrictive Versus Liberal Blood Transfusion in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis

Restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy for red blood cell transfusion: systematic review of randomised trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion strategies in patients with myocardial infarction and anemia: individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized trials

[Comparison of Clinical Outcomes in Very Low Birth Weight Infants with Anemia by Different Transfusion Strategies].

Blood conservation strategies in cardiac valve replacement: A retrospective analysis of 1645 patients.

Restrictive and liberal red cell transfusion strategies in adult patients: reconciling clinical data with best practice

Transfusion thresholds and other strategies for guiding allogeneic red blood cell transfusion

Restrictive Versus Liberal Strategy for Red Blood-Cell Transfusion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Orthopaedic Patients

Restrictive versus liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies for people with haematological malignancies treated with intensive chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or both, with or without haematopoietic stem cell support

Prognostic Impact of Ultra-Restrictive RBC Transfusion in Extensive Burn Patients: a Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study Running Headline: Ultra-Restrictive Transfusion in Burns

Restrictive or Liberal Transfusion Strategy in Myocardial Infarction and Anemia

A liberal blood transfusion strategy is safe in patients with myocardial infarction, anemia, and heart failure: lessons from MINT

To transfuse or not transfuse: an intensive appraisal of red blood cell transfusions in the ICU

Efficacy and safety of restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion strategies in acute myocardial infarction and anemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Restrictive versus liberal strategy for red blood-cell transfusion in hip fracture patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

RESTRICTIVE VERSUS LIBERAL BLOOD TRANSFUSION FOR ACUTE UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING (TRIGGER): PRAGMATIC, CLUSTER RANDOMISED, FEASIBILITY TRIAL

Adherence to a restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategy in critically ill patients: An observational study

Restrictive vs Liberal Blood Transfusions for Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anaemia by Heart Failure Status: An RCT Subgroup Analysis

Effects of Restrictive Transfusion on the Outcome of Mitral Valve Replacement

Comparison of liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategies after hip surgery in patients with coronary artery disease: a post hoc analysis of the FOCUS trial