ObjectiveTo systematically review the characteristics of adverse transfusion reaction in Grade Three Class-A hospitals in China, and to provide scientific evidence for related control and prevention work. MethodsSuch databases as the PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 11, 2014), CNKI, VIP, WanFang Data and CBM were searched for studies investigating the characteristics of adverse transfusion reaction with ≥6 months observation time in Grade Three Class-A hospitals in China up to November 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed by using the R 3.1.1 software. ResultsSeventy-two studies involving 1 660 472 cases of blood transfusion were included. The results of pooled analysis showed that the total number of adverse transfusion reaction rate was 0.58% (95%CI 0.48 to 0.69). Sub-group analysis shows that the blood transfusion adverse reaction rates in the eastern, central and western regions were 0.42% (95%CI 0.31 to 0.55), 0.55% (95%CI 0.41 to 0.70), 0.56% (95%CI 0.43 to 0.70), respectively; and there were statistical differences between regions (P<0.05). Different types of adverse transfusion reaction rates were 38.85% (95%CI 34.27 to 43.53) for non hemolytic febrile reaction and 55.67% (95%CI 50.79 to 60.50) for allergic. The adverse reactions incidence of different kinds of blood products transfusion occurred were 0.41% (95%CI 0.32 to 0.50) in red blood cell, 0.57% (95%CI 0.43 to 0.72) in plasma, 1.00% (95%CI 0.73 to 1.30) in platelet. The incidence of adverse reaction of platelet transfusion was significantly higher than that of red blood cell and plasma (P<0.05). ConclusionThere is a big gap between domestic and foreign blood transfusion adverse reaction reports, therefore comprehensive measures should be taken for further prevention and control.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of plasma exchange (PE) versus routine medical therapy (RMT) for patients with chronic liver failure. MethodsWe electronically searched databases including PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2014), CBM, CNKI, and VIP from inception to August 2014, to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) of PE versus RMT for chronic liver failure patients. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.0 software. ResultsA total of 7 RCTs and 9 CCTs involving 1 632 patients (822 in the PE group and 810 in the RMT group) were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that:compared with the RMT group, the PE group had lower mortality rate (RCT:OR=0.24, 95%CI 0.13 to 0.43; CCT:OR=0.48, 95%CI 0.30 to 0.78) and higher total effective rate (RCT:OR=4.04, 95%CI 2.80 to 5.85; CCT:OR=3.45, 95%CI 2.11 to 5.64). Subgroup analysis based on the stage of liver failure showed that the PE group was superior to the RMT group in early- and intermediate-stage patients with liver failure in total effective rate (early stage:OR=4.78, 95%CI 1.87 to 12.23; intermediate stage:OR=4.43, 95%CI 1.77 to 11.08), but this difference was not found in advanced liver failure patients (OR=1.61, 95%CI 0.35 to 7.38). Seven studies reported 187 cases of adverse reactions (11.46%), and most of them were pruritus and urticaria. ConclusionCurrent evidence shows, compared with the routine medical therapy, the PE therapy could be effective to early- and intermediate-stage liver failure patients, but not be effective to advanced liver failure patients. In addition, patients who received the PE therapy have risks of adverse reactions which mainly are allergic reaction. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.