Anemia Jurnal

Review
Annals of Internal Medicine
Treatment of Anemia in Patients With Heart Disease

A Systematic Review
Devan Kansagara, MD, MCR; Edward Dyer, MD; Honora Englander, MD; Rongwei Fu, PhD; Michele Freeman, MPH; and David Kagen, MD
Background: The benefits of anemia treatment in patients with

heart disease are uncertain.
Purpose: To evaluate the benefits and harms of treatments for
anemia in adults with heart disease.
Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases; clinical trial registries; reference lists; and technical advisors.
Study Selection: English-language trials of blood transfusions, iron,
or erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in adults with anemia and congestive heart failure or coronary heart disease and observational
studies of transfusion.
Data Extraction: Data on study design, population characteristics,
hemoglobin levels, and health outcomes were extracted. Trials were
assessed for quality.
Data Synthesis: Low-strength evidence from 6 trials and 26 observational studies suggests that liberal transfusion protocols do not
improve short-term mortality rates compared with less aggressive
protocols (combined relative risk among trials, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.61
to 1.42]; I 2 16.8%), although decreased mortality rates occurred
in a small trial of patients with the acute coronary syndrome (1.8%
pproximately one third of patients with congestive

heart failure (CHF) and 10% to 20% of those with
coronary heart disease (CHD) also have anemia (13).
Anemia is associated with more symptoms, a greater hospitalization rate, and increased mortality rates both in patients with CHF (4 6) and CHD (7, 8). It is unclear
whether anemia directly leads to these poor outcomes or
simply reflects more severe underlying illness. Indeed,
many factors probably contribute to the development of
anemia in heart disease, including comorbid chronic kidney disease, blunted erythropoietin production, hemodilution, aspirin-induced gastrointestinal blood loss, the use of
reninangiotensinaldosterone system blockers, cytokinemediated inflammation, gut malabsorption, and iron deficiency (9, 10).
For many years, the epidemiologic data and biological
plausibility supporting a link between anemia and poor
outcomes in patients with heart disease prompted many
physicians to advocate treatment of anemia with
See also:
Print
Related article. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 770
Web-Only
Supplement
746 3 December 2013 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 159 Number 11
Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 10/30/2014
vs. 13.0%; P 0.032). Moderate-strength evidence from 3 trials of

intravenous iron found improved short-term exercise tolerance and
quality of life in patients with heart failure. Moderate- to highstrength evidence from 17 trials of erythropoiesis-stimulating agent
therapy found they offered no consistent benefits, but their use
may be associated with harms, such as venous thromboembolism.
Limitations: Few trials have examined transfusions in patients with
heart disease, and observational studies are potentially confounded
by indication. Data supporting iron use come mainly from 1 large
trial, and long-term effects are unknown.
Conclusion: Higher transfusion thresholds do not consistently improve mortality rates, but large trials are needed. Intravenous iron
may help to alleviate symptoms in patients with heart failure and
iron deficiency and also warrants further study. Erythropoiesisstimulating agents do not seem to benefit patients with mild to
moderate anemia and heart disease and may be associated with
serious harms.
Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:746-757.
For author affiliations, see end of text.
www.annals.org
more aggressive use of blood transfusions. Interest in

erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) and iron supplementation to treat anemia in heart disease has also been
growing. An increasing body of literature has recently
tested whether these strategies improve health outcomes in
patients with heart disease. This review summarizes and
updates a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs Evidence-based Synthesis Program and
the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians, which evaluated the health outcome
effects of each of these strategies in adult patients with
heart disease (11).
METHODS
Data Sources and Searches
We conducted a search for literature published in

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled
Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
from database inception to August 2012. We searched
EMBASE through November 2010 because we could not
retain our license for this database beyond that time frame.
The search strategy included such terms as anemia, congestive heart failure, coronary heart disease, ischemic heart disease, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, iron, and red blood cell
transfusion. The detailed search strategy is provided in Table 1 of the Supplement (available at www.annals.org). We
obtained additional articles from systematic reviews; referwww.annals.org
ence lists of pertinent studies, reviews, and editorials; and

consulting experts. We also searched for ongoing and recently completed studies on ClinicalTrials.gov and included reports of trials that had been published as of April
2013.
Study Selection
The analytic framework that guided our review and

synthesis of the literature is provided in Appendix Figure 1
(available at www.annals.org). Eligible articles had Englishlanguage abstracts and provided primary data about the
effects of ESAs, iron, or blood transfusions in adult populations with anemia (hemoglobin levels 13 g/dL in men
and 12 g/dL in women) and symptomatic CHF (with or
without decreased systolic function) or CHD (the acute
coronary syndrome, the postacute coronary syndrome, and
history of myocardial infarction [MI] or angina). We included trials with mixed populations of patients with and
without anemia as long as data specific to the anemia
subgroup were reported. We considered trials comparing
interventions with placebo or those comparing more
intensive with less intensive interventions (that is, trials
examining different transfusion thresholds or hemoglobin
targets). Because few trials of red blood cell transfusion
were found, we included observational studies to characterize the evidence on which current transfusion practice is
based. Outcomes of interest included mortality, hospitalization, exercise tolerance, cardiovascular events, quality of
life, and adverse effects of treatment.
Three investigators reviewed the titles and abstracts of
citations identified from literature searches, and 2 reviewers
independently assessed the selected full-text articles for inclusion on the basis of the eligibility criteria shown in
Table 2 of the Supplement. Disagreements were resolved
by consensus.
Data Extraction and Quality Assessment
From each study, we abstracted study design, objectives, setting, population characteristics (including sex, age,
left ventricular ejection fraction, baseline New York Heart
Association [NYHA] class, and CHD definition), participant eligibility and exclusion criteria, number of participants, years of enrollment, duration of follow-up, the study
and comparator interventions, important cointerventions,
baseline hemoglobin levels, change in hemoglobin levels,
health outcomes, and adverse effects. If only the hematocrit was reported, we used a conversion of 3:1 to approximate the hemoglobin value. To evaluate harms, we collected data on adverse effects from all included trials and
specifically gathered data from each ESA trial on hypertension, venous thromboembolic events (including deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and vascular access
thrombosis), and ischemic cerebrovascular events. In trials
examining blood transfusions, we specifically looked for
reporting of transfusion reactions.
Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of
each trial using a tool developed by the Cochrane Collabwww.annals.org
Review
oration (12). Disagreements were resolved by discussion.

Each study was given an overall summary assessment of
low, high, or unclear risk of bias. We assessed the overall
quality of evidence for outcomes using a method developed
by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group (13), which considers the consistency, coherence, and applicability of a
body of evidence, as well as the internal validity of individual studies, to classify the grade of evidence across
outcomes.
Although there is no widely accepted standard for
quality assessment of observational studies, we adapted existing tools (14, 15) relevant to this review and specifically
assessed whether each observational blood transfusion
study conducted an analysis adjusting for patient propensity to receive a blood transfusion, accounted for bleeding
complications (regardless of whether they were procedurerelated), and accounted for the timing of transfusion given
the potential for survival bias in which patients who died
could not have received a transfusion. The detailed assessment of quality for each study is provided in Tables 3 to 6
of the Supplement. We do not report an overall summary
assessment for observational studies because there are no
validated criteria for doing so.
Data Synthesis and Analysis
We did meta-analyses of study-level data evaluating

the effects of liberal compared with restrictive transfusion
strategies on short-term mortality rates (defined as death
during or within 30 days after the hospital stay) and cardiovascular events (defined as MI, CHF exacerbation, arrhythmia, or cardiac deathwe distinguished in-hospital
events from those occurring during longer-term followup). We abstracted the number of events and total participants from each treatment group and obtained a pooled
estimate of relative risk (RR) using a random-effects model
(16). We preferentially used 30-day mortality for the analysis, followed by in-hospital and 72-hour mortality. We
conducted a sensitivity analysis on the basis of the definition of short-term mortality. If trials included mixed populations of patients with and without heart disease, we
contacted authors for subgroup information if it was not
available in published reports.
We also did meta-analyses of ESA trials for each of the
following outcomes: mean difference in the change in
NYHA class, exercise duration during the 6-minute walk
test, all-cause mortality, hospitalizations, cardiovascular
events, hypertension events, and ischemic cerebrovascular
events. Given the variety of assessment tools used, we did
not do meta-analyses of quality-of-life outcomes. We ran
sensitivity analyses for all outcomes, excluding studies with
high or unclear risk of bias.
All analyses were done using Stata 10.0 (StataCorp,
College Station, Texas). Statistical heterogeneity among
the trials combined in meta-analysis was assessed by the
Cochran Q test and I 2 statistic (12). Publication bias was
3 December 2013 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 159 Number 11 747
Review
not assessed because of the small number of trials that

could be combined (17).
We qualitatively synthesized the results of trials of iron
therapy because only 3 trials examined the effects of iron,
with 1 large trial dominating.
Role of the Funding Source
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative supported this review but
had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data;
preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
RESULTS
We reviewed 1740 titles and abstracts from the electronic search and identified an additional 79 from reviewing reference lists and doing manual searches for recently
published and unpublished or ongoing studies (Appendix
Figure 2, available at www.annals.org). After inclusion and
exclusion criteria were applied at the abstract level, 404
full-text articles were reviewed. Fifty-five articles comprising 52 primary studies met our inclusion criteria. Detailed
results for each intervention are presented in the following
sections, and the overall findings are summarized in
Table 1.
Blood Transfusions
Six trials compared liberal and restrictive transfusion

protocols (18 20, 2325) (Table 7 of the Supplement).
Three of these were conducted in nonoperative settings
among critically ill patients or those with the acute coronary syndrome (23, 25, 26). Three studies were conducted
in patients with and without known heart disease in perioperative settings (18 20), but only 1 of these studies had
CHD-specific subgroup information available (20).
Overall, low-strength evidence from the 6 trials suggests that liberal transfusion protocols do not reduce 30day mortality rates compared with restrictive transfusion
protocols (RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.61 to 1.42]; I 2 16.8%).
Exclusion of the 2 studies in which CHD subgroupspecific information was not available (18, 19) yielded similar results (RR, 0.86 [CI, 0.46 to 1.62]; I 2 50.0%)
(Figure 1).
However, more aggressive transfusion protocols may
be associated with lower risk for cardiovascular events (5
trials; RR, 0.64 [CI, 0.38 to 1.09]; I 2 0.0%). As previously described, exclusion of the 2 studies in which CHD
subgroup information was not available did not affect the
findings (RR, 0.60 [CI, 0.34 to 1.03]; I 2 0.0%) (Appendix Figure 3, available at www.annals.org).
Aside from cardiovascular events, which we report in a
subsequent section, there were no reports of excess adverse
effects from more aggressive transfusion in the trials, although harms reporting was sparse and only 1 trial recorded transfusion reactions (23).
Nonoperative Setting
Low-strength evidence from 3 trials (2325) (combined RR, 0.58 [CI, 0.23 to 1.48]; I 2 29.9%) and 23
observational studies (8, 27 48) suggests that more aggressive transfusion does not decrease mortality rates in patients who are critically ill with heart disease or those with
the acute coronary syndrome (Table 1).
Results among studies, however, were conflicting. A
recent multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of 110 patients compared transfusion thresholds of 10 and 8 g/dL in
patients with the acute coronary syndrome or stable angina
having cardiac catheterization (25). The liberal transfusion
strategy was associated with a lower 30-day mortality rate
(1.8% vs. 13.0%; P 0.032), but the rates of MI (9.1%
vs. 13.0%; P 0.52) and unscheduled coronary revascularization (0.0% vs. 3.7%; P 0.24) were similar in both
groups. Another trial of patients with acute MI compared
similar transfusion thresholds but found that the liberal
transfusion group had a greater rate of the primary end
point, a composite of in-hospital death, recurrent MI, or
new or worsening heart failure (38% vs. 13%; P 0.046),
with most of the difference explained by a greater incidence of new or worsening CHF (23). An older trial of
patients without bleeding who were critically ill and had
anemia compared transfusion hemoglobin thresholds of 10
and 7 g/dL. The overall trial population included 838 patients with and without heart disease and found no difference in mortality or cardiovascular event outcomes (49). In
a post hoc subgroup analysis of the 257 patients with
known ischemic heart disease, 30-day mortality rates were
also similar between the liberal and restrictive transfusion
groups (21.2% vs. 26.1%; RR, 0.81 [CI, 0.52 to 1.26])
(24).
Twenty-three observational studies were done in patients having percutaneous coronary intervention or hospitalized with the acute coronary syndrome, MI, or decompensated heart failure (Table 8 of the Supplement). There
was little evidence in nearly all studies that transfusions at
hemoglobin levels greater than 8 to 9 g/dL were associated
with improved outcomes, although there were 2 exceptions
(8, 45). However, many observational studies found that
transfusions at hemoglobin levels greater than 9 to 10 g/dL
were associated with an increased risk for death. Whether
these findings reflect a true effect of transfusion or confounding by indication is unclear.
No studies examined transfusions in stable outpatients
with a history of CHD.
Perioperative Setting
Low-strength evidence from 3 trials in hip fracture and

vascular surgery patients with heart disease found no shortterm mortality benefit from a liberal compared with a
conservative transfusion strategy (RR, 1.35 [CI, 0.80 to
2.25]; I 2 0.0%) (18 20). However, fewer cardiovascular
events occurred with more aggressive use of transfusions in
patients having surgery. A recent large trial randomly aswww.annals.org
Review
Table 1. Summary of Evidence for Effects of ESAs, Iron, and Blood Transfusions for Anemia, by Patient Population and Outcome
Outcome, by Treatment
Stable CHF
Blood transfusions
All outcomes
Iron
Exercise tolerance and
duration
Trials With Low Risk of Bias Summary of Findings,

(Participants)/Trials With
Treatment vs. Control
High or Unclear Risk of Bias Group*
(Participants), n
GRADE
Classification
Comment
3 (unknown)/0
No significant difference
Insufficient
3 trials included a small number of patients with CHF.

Data specific to patients with isolated CHF and no
CHD were available in only 1 trial of patients who
had hip fracture surgery, which found no difference
in mortality or MI outcomes.
2 (499)/1 (35)
Quality of life
2 (499)/1 (35)
Improvements in NYHA class, Moderate

6-min walk distance, and
Patient Global Assessment
of symptoms
Improvement in quality of life Moderate
Mortality
1 (459)/1 (35)
Insufficient
Cardiovascular events
1 (459)/0
27.6% vs. 50.2% (P 0.01)
Low
2 (499)/1 (35)
Moderate
4 (555)/5 (231)
Studies with low risk of bias:

RR, 0.15 (95% CI,
0.36 to 0.06)
All studies: RR, 0.77 (CI,
1.12 to 0.32)
No consistent, clinically
significant difference in
quality of life
Moderate
Overall, studies with low risk of bias found no

significant effect.
Moderate
Inconsistent results and the variety of instruments

used limit the evidence base. The largest study
found no clinically significant change, although
there was statistically significant improvement in
quality of life with ESA treatment.
1 of the large trials included both CHF and CHD
subgroups, which may limit applicability to
CHF-only populations, although another large trial
in patients with CHF found similar results.
Although smaller, methodologically limited studies
found improvement, the largest and best-quality
studies found no effect.
Serious harms
ESAs
Exercise tolerance and
duration (change in
NYHA score)
Quality of life
4 (2803)/2 (64)
Mortality
6 (4098)/4 (217)
RR, 1.07 (CI, 0.98 to 1.16)
Hospitalizations
4 (3901)/4 (207)
7 (6710)/2 (92)
Studies with low risk of bias

High
studies: RR, 0.97 (CI, 0.87
to 1.10)
All studies: RR, 0.69 (CI, 0.52
to 0.93)
RR, 0.94 (CI, 0.82 to 1.08)
High
Harms
Venous thromboembolism:
4 (3988)/0
Ischemic stroke: 4 (2706)/0
Hypertension: 7 (2899)/0
Decompensated CHF
Blood transfusions
Mortality
Iron
All outcomes
ESAs
All outcomes
High
Most data come from 1 large trial, although the

smaller trials found similar results. Data are most
applicable to patients with NYHA class III
symptoms and ferritin levels 224.7 pmol/L.
Most data come from 1 large trial, although the
smaller trials found similar results. Data are most
applicable to patients with NYHA class III
symptoms and ferritin levels 224.7 pmol/L.
The 1 large trial showed a trend toward benefit but
was not powered for this outcome.
This was not a prespecified end point, and outcome
definition was unclear.
3 of the large trials included patients with advanced

kidney disease, although a fourth large trial
included patients without advanced kidney disease
and found similar results.
1 of the large trials finding increased risk for venous
thromboembolism included both CHF and CHD
subgroups and was conducted in patients with
ESRD, which may limit applicability.
Venous thromboembolism:
RR, 1.36 (CI, 1.17 to 1.58)
Ischemic stroke: RR, 1.33 (CI,
0.93 to 1.89)
Hypertension: RR, 1.20 (CI,
0.90 to 1.59)
Moderate
Insufficient
2 observational studies found conflicting results: 1

showed harm, and the other a possible benefit.
No evidence
No evidence
Continued on following page
www.annals.org
Review
Table 1Continued
Outcome, by Treatment
CHD
Blood transfusions
Mortality
Iron
All outcomes
ESAs
Mortality
Trials With Low Risk of Bias Summary of Findings,

(Participants)/Trials With
Treatment vs. Control
High or Unclear Risk of Bias Group*
(Participants), n
GRADE
Classification
Comment
All patients: 4 (1207)/0

Acute coronary syndrome:
2 (144)/0
Noncardiac surgery:
1 (796)/0
All patients: RR, 0.86

(CI, 0.46 to 1.62)
RR, 0.23 (CI, 0.05 to 1.02)
Noncardiac surgery: RR, 1.44
(CI, 0.81 to 2.54)
Low
All patients: 3 (958)/0

2 (144)/0
Noncardiac surgery:
1 (804)/0
All patients: RR, 0.60

(CI, 0.34 to 1.03)
RR, 0.70 (CI, 0.24 to 2.07)
Noncardiac surgery: RR, 0.52
(CI, 0.27 to 1.01)
Low
Imprecision and the small number of trials limit the

evidence base. The lack of mortality effects may
not apply to the acute coronary syndrome
population. Much of the data come from post hoc
subgroup analyses of 2 trials. A large body of
observational studies also found no mortality
benefit, although the validity of these studies is
limited.
Imprecision, inconsistencies across populations, and
the small number of studies limit the evidence base.
Most events come from a subgroup analysis of 1
large trial of patients who had hip fracture surgery.
0/0
No evidence
Low
2 large trials included a large subgroup of patients

with CHD, but subgroup-specific data are not
available. Patients with advanced CKD; unclear
application to other populations.
1 large trial of patients with heart disease included a
large subgroup of patients with CHD, but
subgroup-specific data are not available. Patients
with ESRD; unclear application to other
populations.
2 large trials included a large subgroup of patients
with CHD, but subgroup-specific data are not
available. Patients with advanced CKD; unclear
application to other populations.
Based on 2 large trials that included large subgroups
of patients with CHD, although subgroup-specific
harms data were not available. Patients had
advanced kidney disease, and application to other
populations is unclear.
No evidence
2 (unknown)/0
Increased mortality
Quality of life
0/1 (unknown)
No effect on functional status Low

of quality-of-life measures
2 (unknown)/1 (36)
No effect on cardiovascular
events
Low
Serious harms
2 (unknown)/0
Increased risk for venous

thromboembolic disease
Low
All other outcomes
0/0
CHD coronary heart disease; CHF congestive heart failure; CKD chronic kidney disease; ESA erythropoiesis-stimulating agent; ESRD end-stage renal disease;
GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation; MI myocardial infarction; NYHA New York Heart Association; RR risk ratio.
* Results according to studies risk-of-bias rating are presented only when the sensitivity analyses indicated that the risk-of-bias rating significantly influenced summary effects.
GRADE classification: high further research is very unlikely to change our confidence on the estimate of effect; moderate further research is likely to have an important
effect on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate; low further research is very likely to have an important effect on our confidence in the
estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate; very low any estimate of effect is very uncertain.
The 2 trials (n 183) for which CHD-specific subgroup information was not available (18, 19) are not included in these summary estimates. Analyses including these trials
yielded similar results for mortality (RR, 1.35 [95% CI, 0.80 to 2.25]) and more imprecise results for MI (RR, 0.63 [CI, 0.25 to 1.60]), in part because these trials only
contributed 3 MI events to the analysis. Data from 1 of the included trials (20) are from the CHD subgroup. Sensitivity analyses examining the effects of different definitions
of cardiac disease (i.e., including patients with CHF or peripheral vascular disease) yielded similar results.
Analysis using a broader definition of cardiovascular disease to include patients with CHD, CHF, peripheral vascular disease, and stroke yielded similar results for mortality
(n 1252; RR, 1.24 [CI, 0.79 to 1.85]) and cardiovascular event outcomes (n 1267; RR, 0.50 [CI, 0.27 to 0.91]). The 2 trials (n 183) for which CHD-specific
subgroup information was not available (18, 19) are not included in these summary estimates.
One trial was classified as high risk of bias for quality-of-life outcomes but low risk of bias for mortality outcomes (21, 22).
signed patients who had hip fracture surgery and a history

of, or risk factors for, cardiovascular disease to a liberal
(hemoglobin level threshold of 10 g/dL) or restrictive
transfusion strategy (symptoms of anemia or at the physicians discretion for hemoglobin levels 8 g/dL) (20). As
expected, more patients in the liberal transfusion group
received 1 or more transfusions than the restrictive group
(96.7% vs. 41.0%; P 0.001). In a post hoc analysis of
the subgroup of 796 patients with known CHD, 30-day
mortality rates in the 2 groups were similar (RR, 1.44 [CI,
0.81 to 2.54]), but the liberal transfusion strategy was associated with a reduced risk for in-hospital MI that approached statistical significance (RR, 0.52 [CI, 0.27 to
1.01]). When we used a broader definition of cardiovascular disease to include patients with CHF, peripheral vascular disease, or cerebrovascular disease, the reduction in
MI reached statistical significance (1267 patients; RR,
0.50 [CI, 0.27 to 0.91]). Of note, among the 748 patients
without known cardiovascular disease, the liberal transfusion strategy had no effect on mortality rates (RR,
www.annals.org
Review
Figure 1. 30-d mortality among patients with congestive heart failure or coronary heart disease in liberal versus restrictive blood
transfusion protocols.
Author, Year (Reference)
Setting
RR (95% CI)
Events/Patients, n/n
Treatment Group
Control Group
Carson et al, 2013 (25)
Medical
0.14 (0.021.10)
1/55
7/54
Surgical
1.44 (0.812.54)
27/396
19/400
Cooper et al, 2011 (23)
Medical
0.57 (0.065.86)
1/21
2/24
Medical
0.81 (0.521.26)
31/146
29/111
0.86 (0.461.62)
60/618
57/589
Hbert et al, 2001 (24)

Overall: I 2 = 50.0%; P = 0.112
0.125 0.25
0.5
Favors Liberal Transfusion Protocol
Favors Restrictive Transfusion Protocol
RR risk ratio.
1.12 [CI, 0.50 to 2.50]) or MI (RR, 1.02 [CI, 0.39 to

2.69]).
In the observational cohorts, transfusion did not seem
to offer any protection, and in 1 vascular surgery study,
mortality and MI rates were greater overall in the transfusion group (Table 8 of the Supplement) (50 52).
Iron
Moderate-strength evidence from 3 trials (5355)

found that intravenous iron improved exercise tolerance,
quality of life, and cardiovascular events in patients with
heart failure (Tables 1 and 2). Results are dominated by 1
large, multicenter trial that found intravenous ferric carboxymaltose improved 6-month exercise tolerance and
quality of life in patients with heart failure (55, 56). Most
patients had NYHA class III symptoms and moderate to
severe systolic dysfunction. Only one half of the patients
had anemia (hemoglobin levels 12 g/dL), but most had
ferritin levels less than 224.7 pmol/L. Intervention patients
were more likely to report they were greatly or moderately
improved on the Patient Global Assessment (50% vs. 28%;
odds ratio, 2.51 [CI, 1.75 to 3.61]) and showed improvement in NYHA functional class (odds ratio for improvement by 1 class, 2.40 [CI, 1.55 to 3.71]). Results were
similar in patients with hemoglobin levels less than and
greater than 12 g/dL for the Patient Global Assessment (P
value for interaction with hemoglobin level 0.98),
NYHA class (P value for interaction 0.51), and qualityof-life (P value for interaction 0.59) outcomes (56).
There were fewer cardiac events in the intervention group
(27.6% vs. 50.2%; P 0.01), although this outcome was
poorly defined and not prespecified. Mortality rates were
similar in both groups (3.4% vs. 5.5%), but the trial was
not powered for mortality outcomes. Serious adverse effects were uncommon, although there was a trend toward
increased gastrointestinal events in the intervention group
(Table 2). The long-term effects of iron treatment are
unknown.
www.annals.org
Two small trials, 1 with low risk of bias (53) and 1

with high risk of bias because of lack of patient blinding
(54), found that intravenous iron sucrose improved symptoms and exercise tolerance.
ESAs
Seventeen randomized, controlled trials of ESAs in patients with heart disease were published in 19 reports (Table 9 of the Supplement) (21, 22, 5773). Twelve trials
enrolled patients with CHF, and the mean ejection fraction was 35% or less among 11 trials that reported systolic
function. Most patients had comorbid CHD. Two trials
included roughly equal proportions of patients with CHD
and CHF (22, 59), and only 1 trial focused exclusively on
patients with CHD (70). Two trials were primarily designed to assess the comparative effects of ESAs titrated to
high or low hemoglobin targets in patients with anemia
and chronic kidney disease but included a large proportion
of patients with heart disease for whom adequate subgroup
data were reported (58, 59).
Overall, there is high-strength evidence that ESA use
has no beneficial effects on mortality rates, cardiovascular
events, and hospitalizations (Table 1). Moderate-strength
evidence suggests that ESAs do not consistently improve
quality of life either. Although some studies found that
ESA use improved exercise tolerance and duration, no improvement was seen on combining trials with low risk of
bias (mean difference in NYHA score change, 0.15 [CI,
0.36 to 0.06]). By contrast, moderately strong evidence
in patients with CHF shows that ESA use may be associated with serious harms, such as hypertension and venous
thromboembolism, and possibly increased mortality rates
(Figure 2). The study characteristics, quality assessment,
and meta-analyses of the ESA trials are shown in detail in
Tables 6 and 9 of the Supplement and Appendix Figures
4 to 11 (available at www.annals.org).
The Reduction of Events With Darbepoetin Alfa in
Heart Failure trial, by far the largest trial (to our knowl3 December 2013 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 159 Number 11 751
Review
Table 2. RCTs of Iron Therapy in Patients With CHF or CHD

Study, Year (Reference);
Setting; Follow-up
Patient Characteristics
(Treatment vs. Control
Group)
Clinical Characteristics
(Treatment vs. Control
Group)
Baseline Kidney
Function (Treatment vs.
Control Group)
Intervention (Treatment
vs. Control Group)
Baseline Measures
of Iron Stores
(Treatment vs.
Control Group)
Anker et al, 2009 (55), and

Comn-Colet et al, 2013 (56);
multicenter, international
RCT; 24 wk
Patients: 304 vs. 155

Male: 47.6% vs. 45.2%
White: 99.7% vs. 100%
Mean age: 67.8 vs.
67.4 y
Mean LVEF: 31.9% vs.

33.0%
NYHA class II: 17.4%
vs. 18.7%
NYHA class III: 82.6%
vs. 81.3%.
RAAS blockers: 92.4%
vs. 91.0%
GFR: 63.8 vs. 64.8

mL/min/1.73 m2
Ferric carboxymaltose,
200 mg weekly IV,
until repleted, then
every 4 wk, vs. saline,
4 mL
Ferritin level: 118 vs.

135 pmol/L
TSAT: 17.7% vs.
16.7%
Okonko et al, 2008 (54);

RCT in 2 centers in Europe;
18 wk
Patients: 24 vs. 11
Male: 71% vs. 73%
White: 88% vs. 91%
Mean age: 64 vs. 62 y
CAD: 79% vs. 73%

LVEF: 30% vs. 29%
RAAS blockers: 96%
vs. 91%
Baseline creatinine level:

109.7 vs. 103.4
mol/L (1.23 vs. 1.17
mg/dL)
Iron sucrose IV in varied

doses (according to a
formula in paper)
weekly for 4 wk then
every 4 wk for 4 mo;
no control

198 pmol/L
TSAT: 20% vs. 21%
Toblli et al, 2007 (53);

RCT; 6 mo
Patients: 20 vs. 20
Male: NR
White: NR
Mean age: 76 vs. 74 y
CAD: 60% vs. 55%

Mean LVEF: 31.3% vs.
30.8%
RAAS blockers: 95%
vs. 100%
Baseline GFR: 39.8 vs.

37.7 mL/min/1.73 m2
Iron sucrose, 200 mg

IV, vs. saline, 200 mL,
159 pmol/L
weekly for 5 wk
TSAT: 20% vs. 20%
CAD coronary artery disease; CHD coronary heart disease; CHF congestive heart failure; EQ-5D EuroQol-5 dimension; GFR glomerular filtration rate;
GI gastrointestinal; HR hazard ratio; IV intravenous; LVEF left ventricular ejection fraction; MLHFQ Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire;
NR not reported; NYHA New York Heart Association; OR odds ratio; PY patient-year; RAAS reninangiotensinaldosterone system; RCT randomized,
controlled trial; TIA transient ischemic attack; TSAT transferrin saturation.
* See Table 5 of the Supplement (available at www.annals.org) for details on quality assessment.
edge) to examine ESA use specifically in patients with

CHF, randomly assigned 2278 patients with systolic heart
failure and hemoglobin levels of 9 to 12 g/dL to darbepoietin titrated to a target hemoglobin level of 13 g/dL or to
placebo (71). There were no differences in any health outcomes, other than a greater rate of thromboembolic events
in the intervention group (13.5% vs. 10.0%; P 0.009)
after a median 28-month follow-up.
We found no substantive difference in results when we
excluded studies in which the mean baseline hemoglobin
levels were less than 11 g/dL or studies in which the mean
increase in hemoglobin levels associated with ESA use were
less than 2 g/dL. However, these parameters varied little
among the trials, which could have made it difficult to
detect any true influence of baseline hemoglobin levels or
change in hemoglobin levels on outcomes.
Three trials compared ESAs titrated to normal or nearnormal targets with those titrated to lower targets (hemoglobin levels, 9 to 11.3 g/dL) (21, 58, 59). None of the
trials found a benefit from aggressive ESA use, and in fact,
2 of the trials found a significant increase in venous throm752 3 December 2013 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 159 Number 11
boembolic risk and a near-significant increase in mortality

rates (21, 59).
No trials in patients with heart disease have evaluated
the effects of more moderate hemoglobin level targets (for
example, 10 to 12 g/dL) compared with lower targets.
DISCUSSION
We examined the effects of 3 strategies for treating
anemia in patients with heart disease. Overall, despite the
epidemiologic and biologically plausible association of anemia with poor outcomes, we did not find consistent evidence that anemia correction improves outcomes in patients with heart disease, although there were notable
exceptions.
The effects of more liberal transfusion protocols on
outcomes are mixed. Low-strength evidence suggests that
more aggressive use of blood transfusions does not consistently decrease mortality rates. However, we found very
limited evidence from a small trial of patients with the
acute coronary syndrome that a transfusion threshold of 10
www.annals.org
Review
Table 2Continued
Baseline
Hemoglobin Level
(Treatment vs.
Control Group)
Mean Change in
Hemoglobin Level
(Treatment vs.
Control Group)
Results (Treatment
vs. Control Group)
Adverse Effects
(Treatment vs.
Control Group)
Risk of Bias*
11.9 vs. 11.9 g/dL
1.1 vs. 0.6 g/dL
GI events: 16.9/100
PYs vs. 6.9/100 PYs;
P 0.06
Respiratory events:
6.2/100 PYs vs.
14.2/100 PYs; P
0.06
Low
12.6 vs. 12.2 g/dL
0.5 vs. 0.4 g/dL
Abdominal pain: 8%
vs. 0%
TIA: 4% vs. 0%
High
10.3 vs. 10.2
1.5 vs. 0.4
Deaths: 5 (3.4%) vs. 4 (5.5%)

Cardiac events: 46 events in 38 patients (27.6/100 PYs) vs. 49 events in 33
patients (50.2/100 PYs); P 0.01
First cardiovascular hospitalization: HR, 0.53 (CI, 0.251.09); P 0.08
Functional status/activity tolerance:
NYHA, OR for improvement by 1 class: 2.40 (CI, 1.553.71)
Patient Global Assessment, OR for improvement: 2.51 (CI,
1.753.61)
6-min walk distance: 313 vs. 277 m
Quality-of-life outcomes: change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy
Questionnaire score at 24 wk: 12.8 (SD, 1.3) vs. 6.2 (SD, 1.5); P 0.001
EQ-5D score change from baseline to 24 wk: 6.6 (SD, 1.2) vs. 1.0 (SD,
1.8); P 0.001
Mortality: 1/24 (4.2%) vs. 0
Hospitalizations: 3/24 (12%) vs. 3/11 (27%)
NYHA score: 2.1 vs. 2.6
Mean change in NYHA score: 0.4 vs. 0.2; P 0.007
Mean change in exercise duration: 45 vs. 15 s; P 0.08
Patient Global Assessment: 1.5 vs. 0.2; P 0.002
Mean change in MLHFQ: 10 vs. 3; P 0.07
Adverse events:
Abdominal pain: 2/24 (8%) vs. 0
TIA: 1/24 (4%) vs. 0
Mean change in creatinine clearance: 5.1 vs. 6.0 mL/min/1.73 m2;
P 0.01
Hospitalizations: 0/20 vs. 5/20 (20%); P 0.01
MLHFQ score: 41 vs. 59; P 0.01
Mean change in MLHFQ score: 19 vs. 1; P 0.01
6-min walk distance: 240.1 vs. 184.5 m; P 0.01
NR
Low
g/dL may decrease mortality rates. Data from a post

hoc subgroup analysis of a trial of patients who had hip
fracture surgery and heart disease suggest that liberal transfusion strategies may reduce in-hospital MI, although the
clinical significance of this finding is unclear in the absence
of mortality benefit and in the context of serial troponin
measurement (20, 25).
Conflicting biological plausibility arguments have
been espoused to support the benefits or harms of transfusions in patients with coronary disease, but surprisingly few
trials have tested these biological assumptions (74). The
more recent trial data suggesting a potential benefit from
more liberal transfusion practices in patients with heart
disease urgently need to be confirmed in large-scale trials.
In the meantime, the low-strength evidence suggesting a
possible benefit needs to be weighed against the wellknown potential adverse effects of blood transfusions,
which range from relatively common volume overload and
febrile reactions to rare infectious and serious hemolytic
complications (75). The precise level of harm associated
with transfusions in patients with heart disease is unknown
www.annals.org
because data on adverse effects were inconsistently reported

among trials.
We found a large body of observational studies that
consistently showed that more aggressive transfusion practices had either neutral or deleterious effects on health outcomes, but the potential for confounding by indication is a
limitation (76). The decision to transfuse patients in those
studies was based on clinical judgment, which would naturally be influenced by severity of illness, symptoms, and
observation of bleeding. Despite very careful propensity
adjustment in some studies, the possibility of residual confounding renders this base of evidence fairly tenuous.
Two meta-analyses examining the effects of transfusions were published in 2013, but neither study included
CHD-specific subgroup data or more recent data in patients with the acute coronary syndrome (77, 78). One of
the meta-analyses focused on a smaller body of 9 observational studies and found that transfusions at greater hemoglobin levels were associated with an increased risk for
death in patients with MI, although this risk was not apparent in studies of patients who had ST-segment elevation
Review
Figure 2. All-cause mortality among patients with congestive heart failure or coronary heart disease treated with
erythropoiesis-stimulating agents versus control treatment.
RR (95% CI)
Treatment Group
Control Group
Besarab et al, 1998 (22), 2008 (21)
1.20 (1.011.42)
208/634
173/631
Palazzuoli et al, 2006 (72)*
0.45 (0.044.55)
1/20
2/18
0.67 (0.123.69)
2/28
3/28
Ponikowski et al, 2007 (67)
1.16 (0.0817.28)
1/19
1/22
van Veldhuisen et al, 2007 (66)
6.56 (0.38114.30)
6/110
0/55
Ghali et al, 2008 (64)
0.59 (0.291.21)
11/162
18/157
Comn-Colet et al, 2009 (57)*
0.87 (0.421.80)
8/27
13/38
1.40 (0.257.77)
3/30
2/28
Parissis et al, 2009 (61)
0.20 (0.013.85)
0/15
2/15
Swedberg et al, 2013 (71)
1.04 (0.941.15)
474/1136
458/1142
1.07 (0.981.16)
714/2181
672/2134
Overall:
I2
= 0.0%; P = 0.76
0.06
0.25
Favors Treatment
16
Favors Control
RR risk ratio.
* High or unclear risk of bias.
MI or baseline hemoglobin levels less than 10 g/dL. The

other meta-analysis found that restrictive transfusion strategies were associated with a lower risk for death that approached statistical significance (RR, 0.85 [CI, 0.70 to
1.03]), but a broad range of patient populations was examined and applicability to patients with heart disease is low.
There is moderate-strength evidence, mainly from 1
large, multicenter trial, that intravenous iron carboxymaltose improves exercise tolerance, quality of life, and exercise
duration in patients with chronic, stable systolic heart failure (55). These results are most applicable to patients with
NYHA class III heart failure and low ferritin levels. Biological plausibility and test-of-concept studies suggest that
iron replacement could play a role in improving symptoms
of heart failure even when iron stores are theoretically adequate, because symptoms may be related to a functional
misuse of iron rather than absolute deficiency (10). Nevertheless, although the criteria used to define iron deficiency
were fairly broad, most patients enrolled in the Assessment
in Patients With Iron Deficiency and Chronic Heart Failure trial had evidence of more advanced iron deficiency
and limited iron stores. Although the trial results are encouraging and at least 1 study has supported the costeffectiveness of iron treatment (79), the long-term health
implications are uncertain, and harms have not been more
widely assessed in this population. In other populations,
iron carboxymaltose has not been associated with an increased risk for serious adverse effects, such as anaphylactic
reactions, which were possibly linked with older iron preparations, such as iron sucrose (80, 81).
There is moderate- to high-strength evidence that

ESAs do not improve health outcomes and may be associated with serious harms in patients with heart disease. The
data are most applicable to patients with CHF and systolic
dysfunction. Future studies may be useful to clarify the
role of ESAs in patients with preserved systolic function or
those with CHD only. The balance of benefits and harms
is most straightforward for the use of ESAs titrated to
normal or near-normal hemoglobin levels. It is unknown
whether more modest hemoglobin targets would be safer
and yield a net health outcome benefit, but the lack of
any functional or quality-of-life benefits from more aggressive use of ESAs suggests that a potential benefit is
unlikely.
Anemia is common in patients with heart disease.
Greater transfusion thresholds are not consistently associated with mortality benefit, but there are few trials. Recent
data suggest a possible benefit in patients with the acute
coronary syndrome, but large trials are needed to better
clarify the role of transfusions in these patients. Evidence
mostly from 1 large trial suggests that intravenous iron
treatment may help to alleviate symptoms over the short
term in patients with symptomatic heart failure and iron
deficiency. Strong evidence shows that ESAs do not improve symptoms or outcomes in patients with mild to
moderate anemia and heart disease and may be associated
with serious harms.
From Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Oregon Health &
Science University, Portland, Oregon.
www.annals.org

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of

Veterans Affairs or the U.S. government.
Acknowledgment: The authors thank Rose Relevo, MLIS, MS, AHIP,
for developing the search strategy and conducting the database searches
and Tomiye Akagi, BA, for providing administrative support. They also
thank Dr. Jeffrey Carson for his advice and for sharing subgroup data
from the Functional Outcomes in Cardiovascular Patients Undergoing
Surgical Hip Fracture Repair study.
Grant Support: From the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans
Health Administration, Office of Research and Development, Quality

Enhancement Research Initiative, Evidence-based Synthesis Program
(project 05-225).
Potential Conflicts of Interest: Disclosures can be viewed at www
.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNumM13
-0078.
Requests for Single Reprints: Devan Kansagara, MD, MCR, Portland
Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mailcode RD71, 3710 Southwest

U.S. Veterans Hospital Road, Portland, OR 97239; e-mail, kansagar
@ohsu.edu.
Current author addresses and author contributions are available at www
.annals.org.
References
1. Boyd CM, Leff B, Wolff JL, Yu Q, Zhou J, Rand C, et al. Informing clinical
practice guideline development and implementation: prevalence of coexisting
conditions among adults with coronary heart disease. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;
59:797-805. [PMID: 21568950]
2. Felker GM, Adams KF Jr, Gattis WA, OConnor CM. Anemia as a risk
factor and therapeutic target in heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:959-66.
[PMID: 15337204]
3. Malyszko J, Bachorzewska-Gajewska H, Malyszko J, Levin-Iaina N, Iaina A,
Dobrzycki S. Prevalence of chronic kidney disease and anemia in patients with
coronary artery disease with normal serum creatinine undergoing percutaneous
coronary interventions: relation to New York Heart Association class. Isr Med
Assoc J. 2010;12:489-93. [PMID: 21337818]
4. OMeara E, Clayton T, McEntegart MB, McMurray JJ, Lang CC, Roger
SD, et al; CHARM Committees and Investigators. Clinical correlates and consequences of anemia in a broad spectrum of patients with heart failure: results of
the Candesartan in Heart Failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and
Morbidity (CHARM) Program. Circulation. 2006;113:986-94. [PMID:
16476847]
5. Kosiborod M, Smith GL, Radford MJ, Foody JM, Krumholz HM. The
prognostic importance of anemia in patients with heart failure. Am J Med. 2003;
114:112-9. [PMID: 12586230]
6. Komajda M, Anker SD, Charlesworth A, Okonko D, Metra M, Di Lenarda
A, et al. The impact of new onset anaemia on morbidity and mortality in chronic
heart failure: results from COMET. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:1440-6. [PMID:
16717081]
7. da Silveira AD, Ribeiro RA, Rossini AP, Stella SF, Ritta HA, Stein R, et al.
Association of anemia with clinical outcomes in stable coronary artery disease.
Coron Artery Dis. 2008;19:21-6. [PMID: 18281811]
8. Sabatine MS, Morrow DA, Giugliano RP, Burton PB, Murphy SA, McCabe
CH, et al. Association of hemoglobin levels with clinical outcomes in acute
coronary syndromes. Circulation. 2005;111:2042-9. [PMID: 15824203]
9. Anand IS. Heart failure and anemia: mechanisms and pathophysiology. Heart
Fail Rev. 2008;13:379-86. [PMID: 18236152]
10. Gonzalez-Costello J, Comn-Colet J. Iron deficiency and anaemia in heart
failure: understanding the FAIR-HF trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2010;12:1159-62.
[PMID: 20855375]
www.annals.org
Review
11. Kansagara D, Dyer EA, Englander H, Freeman M, Kagen D. Treatment of

Anemia in Patients with Heart Disease: A Systematic Review. VA-ESP Project
no. 05-225. 2011. Accessed at www.hsrd.research.va.gov/publications/esp
/anemia.cfm on 18 October 2013.
12. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Sterne JA, eds. Part 2, Chapter 8: Assessing risk of
bias in included studies. In: Higgins JP, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for
Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.10 (updated March 2011). The
Cochrane Collaboration; 2008. Accessed at www.cochrane-handbook.org on 12
June 2013.
13. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al;
GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490. [PMID: 15205295]
14. Norris S, Atkins D, Bruening W, Fox S, Johnson E, Kane R, et al. Selecting
observational studies for comparing medical interventions. In: Methods Guide for
Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2010. Accessed at www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc
/products/196/454/MethodsGuideNorris_06042010.pdf on 18 October 2013.
15. Wells GA, Shea B, OConnell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The
Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Accessed at www.ohri
.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp on 1 October 2012.
16. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials.
1986;7:177-88. [PMID: 3802833]
17. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis
detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629-34. [PMID: 9310563]
18. Bush RL, Pevec WC, Holcroft JW. A prospective, randomized trial limiting
perioperative red blood cell transfusions in vascular patients. Am J Surg. 1997;
174:143-8. [PMID: 9293831]
19. Carson JL, Terrin ML, Barton FB, Aaron R, Greenburg AG, Heck DA,
et al. A pilot randomized trial comparing symptomatic vs. hemoglobin leveldriven red blood cell transfusions following hip fracture. Transfusion. 1998;38:
522-9. [PMID: 9661685]
20. Carson JL, Terrin ML, Noveck H, Sanders DW, Chaitman BR, Rhoads
GG, et al; FOCUS Investigators. Liberal or restrictive transfusion in high-risk
patients after hip surgery. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:2453-62. [PMID:
22168590]
21. Besarab A, Goodkin DA, Nissenson AR; Normal Hematocrit Cardiac Trial
Authors. The normal hematocrit studyfollow-up [Letter]. N Engl J Med.
2008;358:433-4. [PMID: 18216370]
22. Besarab A, Bolton WK, Browne JK, Egrie JC, Nissenson AR, Okamoto
DM, et al. The effects of normal as compared with low hematocrit values in
patients with cardiac disease who are receiving hemodialysis and epoetin. N Engl
J Med. 1998;339:584-90. [PMID: 9718377]
23. Cooper HA, Rao SV, Greenberg MD, Rumsey MP, McKenzie M, Alcorn
KW, et al. Conservative versus liberal red cell transfusion in acute myocardial
infarction (the CRIT Randomized Pilot Study). Am J Cardiol. 2011;108:110811. [PMID: 21791325]
24. Hebert PC, Yetisir E, Martin C, Blajchman MA, Wells G, Marshall J, et al;
Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care Investigators for the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. Is a low transfusion threshold safe in critically ill patients
with cardiovascular diseases? Crit Care Med. 2001;29:227-34. [PMID:
11246298]
25. Carson JL, Brooks MM, Abbott JD, Chaitman B, Kelsey SF, Triulzi DJ,
et al. Liberal versus restrictive transfusion thresholds for patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease. Am Heart J. 2013;165:964-971.e1. [PMID:
23708168]
26. Hebert PC, Szick S. The anemic patient in the ICU: how much does the
heart tolerate? Anasthesiologie, Intensivmedizin, Notfallmedizin, Schmerztherapie. 2001;36 Suppl 2:S94-100.
27. Chase AJ, Fretz EB, Warburton WP, Klinke WP, Carere RG, Pi D, et al.
Association of the arterial access site at angioplasty with transfusion and mortality:
the M.O.R.T.A.L study (Mortality benefit Of Reduced Transfusion after percutaneous coronary intervention via the Arm or Leg). Heart. 2008;94:1019-25.
[PMID: 18332059]
28. Doyle BJ, Ting HH, Bell MR, Lennon RJ, Mathew V, Singh M, et al.
Major femoral bleeding complications after percutaneous coronary intervention:
incidence, predictors, and impact on long-term survival among 17,901 patients
treated at the Mayo Clinic from 1994 to 2005. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008;
1:202-9. [PMID: 19463301]
Review
29. Jani SM, Smith DE, Share D, Kline-Rogers E, Khanal S, ODonnell MJ,
et al. Blood transfusion and in-hospital outcomes in anemic patients with myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Clin Cardiol.
2007;30:II49-56. [PMID: 18228652]
30. Jolicoeur EM, ONeill WW, Hellkamp A, Hamm CW, Holmes DR Jr,
Al-Khalidi HR, et al; APEX-AMI Investigators. Transfusion and mortality in
patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary
percutaneous coronary intervention. Eur Heart J. 2009;30:2575-83. [PMID:
19596659]
31. Kim P, Dixon S, Eisenbrey AB, OMalley B, Boura J, ONeill W. Impact
of acute blood loss anemia and red blood cell transfusion on mortality after
percutaneous coronary intervention. Clin Cardiol. 2007;30:II35-43. [PMID:
18228650]
32. Kinnaird TD, Stabile E, Mintz GS, Lee CW, Canos DA, Gevorkian N,
et al. Incidence, predictors, and prognostic implications of bleeding and blood
transfusion following percutaneous coronary interventions. Am J Cardiol. 2003;
92:930-5. [PMID: 14556868]
33. Maluenda G, Lemesle G, Syed A, Collins SD, Ben-Dor I, Li Y, et al.
Should patients who develop anemia (hematocrit (less-than or equal to) 27%)
after percutaneous coronary intervention be transfused? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;
53:A84.
34. Maluenda G, Lemesle G, Ben-Dor I, Collins SD, Syed AI, Li Y, et al. Value
of blood transfusion in patients with a blood hematocrit of 24% to 30% after
percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2009;104:1069-73. [PMID:
19801026]
35. Maluenda G, Lemesle G, Syed A, Collins SD, Ben-Dor I, Li Y, et al. Does
transfusion for major bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention impact
clinical outcome in patients admitted with normal hematocrit? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:A72.
36. Nikolsky E, Mehran R, Sadeghi HM, Grines CL, Cox DA, Garcia E, et al.
Prognostic impact of blood transfusion after primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: analysis from the CADILLAC (Controlled Abciximab and
Device Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty Complications) Trial. JACC
Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2:624-32. [PMID: 19628185]
37. Yatskar L, Selzer F, Feit F, Cohen HA, Jacobs AK, Williams DO, et al.
Access site hematoma requiring blood transfusion predicts mortality in patients
undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: data from the National Heart,
Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2007;
69:961-6. [PMID: 17421023]
38. Aggarwal C, Panza JA, Cooper HA. Does the relation between red blood cell
transfusion and mortality vary according to transfusion indication? A case-control
study among patients with acute coronary syndromes. Coron Artery Dis. 2011;
22:194-8. [PMID: 21169814]
39. Alexander KP, Chen AY, Wang TY, Rao SV, Newby LK, LaPointe NM,
et al; CRUSADE Investigators. Transfusion practice and outcomes in non-STsegment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Am Heart J. 2008;155:1047-53.
[PMID: 18513518]
40. Aronson D, Dann EJ, Bonstein L, Blich M, Kapeliovich M, Beyar R, et al.
Impact of red blood cell transfusion on clinical outcomes in patients with acute
myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2008;102:115-9. [PMID: 18602505]
41. Athar MK, Bagga S, Nair N, Punjabi V, Vito K, Schorr C, et al. Risk of
cardiac arrhythmias and conduction abnormalities in patients with acute myocardial infarction receiving packed red blood cell transfusions. J Crit Care. 2011;26:
335-41. [PMID: 20869199]
42. Rao SV, Jollis JG, Harrington RA, Granger CB, Newby LK, Armstrong
PW, et al. Relationship of blood transfusion and clinical outcomes in patients
with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA. 2004;292:1555-62. [PMID: 15467057]
43. Shishehbor MH, Madhwal S, Rajagopal V, Hsu A, Kelly P, Gurm HS,
et al. Impact of blood transfusion on short- and long-term mortality in patients
with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;
2:46-53. [PMID: 19463397]
44. Singla I, Zahid M, Good CB, Macioce A, Sonel AF. Impact of blood
transfusions in patients presenting with anemia and suspected acute coronary
syndrome. Am J Cardiol. 2007;99:1119-21. [PMID: 17437739]
45. Wu WC, Rathore SS, Wang Y, Radford MJ, Krumholz HM. Blood transfusion in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2001;
345:1230-6. [PMID: 11680442]
46. Yang X, Alexander KP, Chen AY, Roe MT, Brindis RG, Rao SV, et al;
CRUSADE Investigators. The implications of blood transfusions for patients
with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: results from the
CRUSADE National Quality Improvement Initiative. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;

46:1490-5. [PMID: 16226173]
47. Garty M, Cohen E, Zuchenko A, Behar S, Boyko V, Iakobishvili Z, et al;
Heart Failure Survey in ISrael (HFSIS) Investigators. Blood transfusion for
acute decompensated heart failurefriend or foe? Am Heart J. 2009;158:653-8.
[PMID: 19781427]
48. Kao DP, Kreso E, Fonarow GC, Krantz MJ. Characteristics and outcomes
among heart failure patients with anemia and renal insufficiency with and without blood transfusions (public discharge data from California 2000-2006).
Am J Cardiol. 2011;107:69-73. [PMID: 21146689]
49. Hebert PC, Wells G, Blajchman MA, Marshall J, Martin C, Pagliarello G,
et al. A multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of transfusion requirements in critical care. Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care Investigators,
Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:409-17. [PMID:
9971864]
50. Carson JL, Duff A, Berlin JA, Lawrence VA, Poses RM, Huber EC, et al.
Perioperative blood transfusion and postoperative mortality. JAMA. 1998;279:
199-205. [PMID: 9438739]
51. Bursi F, Barbieri A, Politi L, Di Girolamo A, Malagoli A, Grimaldi T, et al.
Perioperative red blood cell transfusion and outcome in stable patients after elective major vascular surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2009;37:311-8. [PMID:
19111480]
52. Glance LG, Dick AW, Mukamel DB, Fleming FJ, Zollo RA, Wissler R,
et al. Association between intraoperative blood transfusion and mortality and
morbidity in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Anesthesiology. 2011;114:
283-92. [PMID: 21239971]
53. Toblli JE, Lombrana A, Duarte P, Di Gennaro F. Intravenous iron reduces
NT-pro-brain natriuretic peptide in anemic patients with chronic heart failure
and renal insufficiency. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;50:1657-65. [PMID:
17950147]
54. Okonko DO, Grzeslo A, Witkowski T, Mandal AK, Slater RM, Roughton
M, et al. Effect of intravenous iron sucrose on exercise tolerance in anemic and
nonanemic patients with symptomatic chronic heart failure and iron deficiency
FERRIC-HF: a randomized, controlled, observer-blinded trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51:103-12. [PMID: 18191732]
55. Anker SD, Comin Colet J, Filippatos G, Willenheimer R, Dickstein K,
Drexler H, et al; FAIR-HF Trial Investigators. Ferric carboxymaltose in patients
with heart failure and iron deficiency. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2436-48.
[PMID: 19920054]
56. Comn-Colet J, Lainscak M, Dickstein K, Filippatos GS, Johnson P,
Luscher TF, et al. The effect of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose on healthrelated quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure and iron deficiency: a
subanalysis of the FAIR-HF study. Eur Heart J. 2013;34:30-8. [PMID:
22297124]
57. Comn-Colet J, Ruiz S, Cladellas M, Rizzo M, Torres A, Bruguera J. A
pilot evaluation of the long-term effect of combined therapy with intravenous
iron sucrose and erythropoietin in elderly patients with advanced chronic heart
failure and cardio-renal anemia syndrome: influence on neurohormonal activation and clinical outcomes. J Card Fail. 2009;15:727-35. [PMID: 19879457]
58. Szczech LA, Barnhart HX, Sapp S, Felker GM, Hernandez A, Reddan D,
et al. A secondary analysis of the CHOIR trial shows that comorbid conditions
differentially affect outcomes during anemia treatment. Kidney Int. 2010;77:23946. [PMID: 19890274]
59. Pfeffer MA, Burdmann EA, Chen CY, Cooper ME, de Zeeuw D, Eckardt
KU, et al; TREAT Investigators. Baseline characteristics in the Trial to Reduce
Cardiovascular Events With Aranesp Therapy (TREAT). Am J Kidney Dis.
2009;54:59-69. [PMID: 19501439]
60. Palazzuoli A, Silverberg DS, Calabro` A, Spinelli T, Quatrini I, Campagna
MS, et al. Beta-erythropoietin effects on ventricular remodeling, left and right
systolic function, pulmonary pressure, and hospitalizations in patients affected
with heart failure and anemia. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2009;53:462-7. [PMID:
19455052]
61. Parissis JT, Kourea K, Andreadou I, Ikonomidis I, Markantonis S, Ioannidis K, et al. Effects of darbepoetin alfa on plasma mediators of oxidative and
nitrosative stress in anemic patients with chronic heart failure secondary to ischemic or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Am J Cardiol. 2009;103:1134-8.
[PMID: 19361602]
62. Kourea K, Parissis JT, Farmakis D, Paraskevaidis I, Panou F, Filippatos G,
et al. Effects of darbepoetin-alpha on quality of life and emotional stress in
www.annals.org

anemic patients with chronic heart failure. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2008;
15:365-9. [PMID: 18525396]
63. Parissis JT, Kourea K, Panou F, Farmakis D, Paraskevaidis I, Ikonomidis I,
et al. Effects of darbepoetin alpha on right and left ventricular systolic and diastolic function in anemic patients with chronic heart failure secondary to ischemic
or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Am Heart J. 2008;155:751.e1-7. [PMID:
18371487]
64. Ghali JK, Anand IS, Abraham WT, Fonarow GC, Greenberg B, Krum H,
et al; Study of Anemia in Heart Failure Trial (STAMINA-HeFT) Group.
Randomized double-blind trial of darbepoetin alfa in patients with symptomatic
heart failure and anemia. Circulation. 2008;117:526-35. [PMID: 18195176]
65. Palazzuoli A, Silverberg DS, Iovine F, Calabro` A, Campagna MS, Gallotta
M, et al. Effects of beta-erythropoietin treatment on left ventricular remodeling,
systolic function, and B-type natriuretic peptide levels in patients with the cardiorenal anemia syndrome. Am Heart J. 2007;154:645.e9-15. [PMID:
17892986]
66. van Veldhuisen DJ, Dickstein K, Cohen-Solal A, Lok DJ, Wasserman SM,
Baker N, et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate
the effect of two dosing regimens of darbepoetin alfa in patients with heart failure
and anaemia. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:2208-16. [PMID: 17681958]
67. Ponikowski P, Anker SD, Szachniewicz J, Okonko D, Ledwidge M, Zymlinski R, et al. Effect of darbepoetin alfa on exercise tolerance in anemic patients
with symptomatic chronic heart failure: a randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:753-62. [PMID: 17306703]
68. Mancini DM, Katz SD, Lang CC, LaManca J, Hudaihed A, Androne AS.
Effect of erythropoietin on exercise capacity in patients with moderate to severe
chronic heart failure. Circulation. 2003;107:294-9. [PMID: 12538431]
69. Silverberg DS, Wexler D, Sheps D, Blum M, Keren G, Baruch R, et al. The
effect of correction of mild anemia in severe, resistant congestive heart failure
using subcutaneous erythropoietin and intravenous iron: a randomized controlled
study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;37:1775-80. [PMID: 11401110]
70. Bellinghieri G, Savica V, De Gregorio C, De Gregorio G. Use of erythropoietin in ischemic and arrhythmic cardiopathy of hemodialyzed patients. Contrib Nephrol. 1994;106:135-7. [PMID: 8174359]
71. Swedberg K, Young JB, Anand IS, Cheng S, Desai AS, Diaz R, et al;
RED-HF Committees. Treatment of anemia with darbepoetin alfa in systolic
heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1210-9. [PMID: 23473338]
www.annals.org
Review
72. Palazzuoli A, Silverberg D, Iovine F, Capobianco S, Giannotti G, Calabro`

A, et al. Erythropoietin improves anemia exercise tolerance and renal function
and reduces B-type natriuretic peptide and hospitalization in patients with heart
failure and anemia. Am Heart J. 2006;152:1096.e9-15. [PMID: 17161060]
73. Singh AK, Szczech L, Tang KL, Barnhart H, Sapp S, Wolfson M, et al;
CHOIR Investigators. Correction of anemia with epoetin alfa in chronic kidney
disease. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2085-98. [PMID: 17108343]
74. Gerber DR. Transfusion of packed red blood cells in patients with ischemic
heart disease. Crit Care Med. 2008;36:1068-74. [PMID: 18379229]
75. Carson JL, Grossman BJ, Kleinman S, Tinmouth AT, Marques MB, Fung
MK, et al; Clinical Transfusion Medicine Committee of the AABB. Red blood
cell transfusion: a clinical practice guideline from the AABB. Ann Intern Med.
2012;157:49-58. [PMID: 22751760]
76. Norris SL, Atkins D, Bruening W, Fox S, Johnson E, Kane R, et al.
Observational studies in systemic reviews of comparative effectiveness: AHRQ
and the Effective Health Care Program. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1178-86.
[PMID: 21636246]
77. Chatterjee S, Wetterslev J, Sharma A, Lichstein E, Mukherjee D. Association of blood transfusion with increased mortality in myocardial infarction: a
meta-analysis and diversity-adjusted study sequential analysis. JAMA Intern Med.
2013;173:132-9. [PMID: 23266500]
78. Carson JL, Carless PA, Hebert PC. Outcomes using lower vs higher hemoglobin thresholds for red blood cell transfusion. JAMA. 2013;309:83-4. [PMID:
23280228]
79. Gutzwiller FS, Schwenkglenks M, Blank PR, Braunhofer PG, Mori
C, Szucs TD, et al. Health economic assessment of ferric carboxymaltose in
patients with iron deficiency and chronic heart failure based on the FAIR-HF
trial: an analysis for the UK. Eur J Heart Fail. 2012;14:782-90. [PMID:
22689292]
80. Lyseng-Williamson KA, Keating GM. Ferric carboxymaltose: a review of its
use in iron-deficiency anaemia. Drugs. 2009;69:739-56. [PMID: 19405553]
81. Qunibi WY, Martinez C, Smith M, Benjamin J, Mangione A, Roger SD.
A randomized controlled trial comparing intravenous ferric carboxymaltose with
oral iron for treatment of iron deficiency anaemia of non-dialysis-dependent
chronic kidney disease patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2011;26:1599-607.
[PMID: 20929915]
Annals of Internal Medicine

Current Author Addresses: Dr. Kansagara and Ms. Freeman: Portland
Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mailcode RD71, 3710 Southwest U.S.
Veterans Hospital Road, Portland, OR 97239.
Drs. Dyer and Kagen: Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Mailcode P3-MED, 3710 Southwest U.S. Veterans Hospital Road, Portland,
OR 97239.
Dr. Englander: Oregon Health & Science University, BTE 119, 3181
Southwest Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239.
Dr. Fu: Department of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Oregon
Health & Science University, Mailcode CB669, 3181 Southwest Sam
Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239.
Author Contributions: Conception and design: D. Kansagara, H. Englander, D. Kagen.

Analysis and interpretation of the data: D. Kansagara, E. Dyer, H. Englander, R. Fu, D. Kagen.
Drafting of the article: D. Kansagara, H. Englander, D. Kagen.
Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content: D. Kansagara, E. Dyer, H. Englander, R. Fu, M. Freeman, D. Kagen.
Final approval of the article: D. Kansagara, H. Englander, R. Fu, D.
Kagen.
Statistical expertise: D. Kansagara, R. Fu.
Administrative, technical, or logistic support: M. Freeman.
Collection and assembly of data: D. Kansagara, E. Dyer, H. Englander,
M. Freeman, D. Kagen.
Appendix Figure 1. Analytic framework.
Treatment interventions:
Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents
Iron (oral or intravenous)
Red blood cell transfusions
Patients with congestive

heart failure or
coronary heart disease
and anemia
Intermediate outcomes
Change in hemoglobin
Change in glomerular
filtration rate
Ejection fraction
Oxygen consumption
Patient-centered outcomes
Activity tolerance
Hospitalizations
Death
Quality of life
Treatment harms
Cerebrovascular events
Hypertension
Venous thrombosis
Other
www.annals.org
3 December 2013 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 159 Number 11
Appendix Figure 2. Summary of evidence search and selection.
Citations identified from electronic database searches (n = 2638)

MEDLINE: 1218
Cochrane Library: 91
EMBASE: 1329
Duplicate citations excluded

(n = 898)
Citations yielded from electronic database searches (n = 1740)
Citations identified from reference

lists of review articles and manual
searches for recent unpublished or
ongoing studies (n = 79)
Citations compiled for review of titles and abstracts (n = 1819)
Titles and abstracts excluded for lack

of relevance (n = 1415)
Potentially relevant articles retrieved for further review (n = 404)
Excluded articles (n = 349)

NonEnglish-language: 2
Study population not in scope: 20
Studied outcomes not in scope: 8
Study design or article type out of scope: 62
Retrieved for background, discussion,
methods, or other contextual purposes: 251
Duplicate publication: 6
Primary studies in 55 articles in patients with anemia and CHF/CHD (n = 52)

RCTs of ESAs: 17
RCTs of iron: 3
Studies on blood transfusions: 32
RCTs: 6
Observational: 26
CHD coronary heart disease; CHF congestive heart failure; ESA erythropoiesis-stimulating agent; RCT randomized, controlled trial.
www.annals.org
Appendix Figure 3. Cardiovascular events among patients with congestive heart failure or coronary heart disease in liberal versus
restrictive blood transfusion protocols.
Setting
Cardiovascular
Events
RR (95% CI)
Treatment Group
Control Group
Medical
MI, 30-d
0.70 (0.242.07)
5/55
7/54
Surgical
MI, in-hospital
0.52 (0.271.01)
13/401
25/403
Cooper et al, 2011 (23)
Medical
MI, 30-d
(Excluded)
1/21
0/24
0.60 (0.341.03)
19/477
32/481
Overall:
I2
= 0.0%; P = 0.89
0.125 0.25
0.5
Favors Liberal Transfusion Protocol
Favors Restrictive Transfusion Protocol
MI myocardial infarction; RR risk ratio.
Appendix Figure 4. Change in NYHA score among patients with congestive heart failure treated with erythropoiesis-stimulating
agents compared with control patients.
Weighted Mean Difference
(95% CI)
Patients, n/Mean Change in NYHA Score (SD)

Treatment Group
Control Group
Comn-Colet et al, 2009 (57)*
1.50 (1.76 to 1.24)
27/1.3 (0.6)
38/0.2 (0.5)
0.06 (0.17 to 0.05)
162/0.19 (0.51)
157/0.13 (0.50)
0.70 (0.98 to 0.42)
26/0.6 (0.6)
25/0.1 (0.5)
0.61 (0.97 to 0.25)
26/0.63 (0.70)
25/0.02 (0.62)
1.20 (1.58 to 0.82)
21/0.7 (0.5)
11/0.5 (0.6)
0.80 (1.31 to 0.29)
15/0.667 (0.612)
15/0.133 (0.794)
0.02 (0.48 to 0.44)
19/0.11 (0.77)
22/0.09 (0.73)
Silverberg et al, 2001 (69)*
2.00 (2.42 to 1.58)
16/1.6 (0.6)
16/0.4 (0.6)
0.07 (0.27 to 0.13)
110/0.3 (0.6)
55/0.23 (0.59)
0.77 (1.21 to 0.32)
422
364
Overall: I 2 = 96.0%; P = 0.000

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5
Favors Treatment
0.5
Favors Control
NYHA New York Heart Association.

www.annals.org
Appendix Figure 5. Change in NYHA score among patients with congestive heart failure treated with erythropoiesis-stimulating
agents versus control patients in studies with low risk of bias.
Weighted Mean Differece
(95% CI)
Patients, n/Mean Change in NYHA Score (SD)

Treatment Group
Control Group
0.06 (0.17 to 0.05)
162/0.19 (0.51)
157/0.13 (0.50)
0.80 (1.31 to 0.29)
15/0.667 (0.612)
15/0.133 (0.794)
0.02 (0.48 to 0.44)
19/0.11 (0.77)
22/0.09 (0.73)
0.07 (0.27 to 0.13)
110/0.3 (0.6)
55/0.23 (0.59)
0.15 (0.36 to 0.06)
306
249
Overall:
I2
= 62.1%; P = 0.048
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5
Favors Treatment
Favors Control
NYHA New York Heart Association.
Appendix Figure 6. Change in 6-minute walk distance among patients with congestive heart failure treated with
erythropoiesis-stimulating agents compared with control patients.
Weighted Mean Difference
(95% CI)
Patients, n/Mean Change in

6-Minute Walk Distance, m
Treatment Group
Control Group
Mancini et al, 2003 (68)*
5.51 (85.03 to 96.05)
15/43 (82)
8/37.5 (110)
Kourea et al, 2008 (62)*
146.00 (101.33 to 190.67)
21/106 (66)
20/40 (79)
116.00 (47.35 to 184.65)
21/69 (97)
11/47 (92)
22.80 (1.94 to 47.54)
110/34.2 (76.6)
55/11.4
74.42 (0.16 to 148.99)
167
94
Overall:
I2
= 88.7%; P = 0.000
100
50
Favors Control
50
100
150
200
Favors Treatment
Appendix Figure 7. Risk for hospitalization among patients with congestive heart failure or coronary heart disease treated with
erythropoiesis-stimulating agents versus control patients in studies with low risk of bias.
RR (95% CI)
Treatment Group
Control Group
Besarab et al, 1998 (22), 2008 (21)
0.88 (0.671.17)
80/618
90/615
0.77 (0.144.14)
2/19
3/22
0.74 (0.441.26)
NR
NR
1.01 (0.891.16)
314/1136
311/1142
0.97 (0.871.10)
NR
NR
Overall: I 2 = 0.0%; P = 0.58
0.06
0.25
Favors Treatment
Favors Control
NR not reported; RR risk ratio.

www.annals.org
Appendix Figure 8. Cardiovascular events among patients with congestive heart failure or coronary heart disease treated with
RR (95% CI)
Treatment Group
Control Group
Bellinghieri et al, 1994 (70)*
0.26 (0.090.72)
4/26
6/10
Besarab et al, 1998 (22), 2008 (21)
1.24 (0.652.38)
20/634
16/631
0.48 (0.171.40)
4/26
8/25
0.39 (0.043.41)
1/19
3/22
0.79 (0.371.71)
14/108
9/55
0.68 (0.431.08)
NR
NR
Pfeffer et al, 2009 (59)
1.06 (0.931.20)
494/1287
485/1355
Szczech et al, 2010 (58)
0.91 (0.741.12)
89/192
93/183
1.02 (0.931.12)
513/1136
506/1142
0.94 (0.821.08)
NR
NR
Overall: I 2 = 44.4%; P = 0.072

0.12 0.25 0.5
Favors Treatment
Favors Control
NR not reported; RR risk ratio.

Appendix Figure 9. Cerebrovascular events among patients with congestive heart failure or coronary heart disease treated with
RR (95% CI)
Treatment Group
Control Group
1.70 (0.515.68)
7/162
4/157
0.32 (0.017.38)
0/21
1/20
0.18 (0.014.13)
0/21
1/11
1.36 (0.941.99)
61/1133
45/1140
(Excluded)
0/19
0/22
1.33 (0.931.89)
68/1356
51/1350
Overall: I 2 = 0.0%; P = 0.98

0.06
0.25
Favors Treatment
Favors Control
RR risk ratio.
* Unclear risk of bias.
www.annals.org
Appendix Figure 10. Hypertension events among patients with congestive heart failure or coronary heart disease treated with
RR (95% CI)
Treatment Group
Control Group
3.45 (0.1580.03)
1/19
0/22
0.51 (0.073.52)
2/108
2/55
1.26 (0.572.79)
13/162
10/157
0.95 (0.0614.22)
1/21
1/20
1.64 (0.0737.15)
1/21
0/11
3.00 (0.1368.26)
1/15
0/15
1.18 (0.871.61)
81/1133
69/1140
1.20 (0.911.59)
100/1479
82/1420
Overall: I 2 = 0.0%; P = 0.992

0.06
0.25
Favors Treatment
16
64
Favors Control
RR risk ratio.
* Unclear risk of bias.
Appendix Figure 11. Venous thromboembolic events among patients with congestive heart failure or coronary heart disease treated
with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents compared with control patients.
RR (95% CI)
Treatment Group
Control Group
Besarab et al, 1998 (22), 2008 (21)
1.37 (1.171.61)
243/618
176/615
0.17 (0.014.14)
0/108
1/55
0.19 (0.014.01)
0/162
2/157
1.46 (0.832.56)
29/1133
20/1140
1.36 (1.171.58)
272/2021
199/1967
Overall: I 2 = 0.0%; P = 0.99
0.06
0.25
Favors Treatment
Favors Control
RR risk ratio.
www.annals.org

Anemia Jurnal

Uploaded by

Anemia Jurnal

Uploaded by

Review

Annals of Internal Medicine

Treatment of Anemia in Patients With Heart Disease

Background: The benefits of anemia treatment in patients with

pproximately one third of patients with congestive

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 10/30/2014

vs. 13.0%; P 0.032). Moderate-strength evidence from 3 trials of

more aggressive use of blood transfusions. Interest in

We conducted a search for literature published in

Treatment of Anemia in Patients With Heart Disease

ence lists of pertinent studies, reviews, and editorials; and

The analytic framework that guided our review and

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 10/30/2014

oration (12). Disagreements were resolved by discussion.

We did meta-analyses of study-level data evaluating

Treatment of Anemia in Patients With Heart Disease

not assessed because of the small number of trials that

Six trials compared liberal and restrictive transfusion

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 10/30/2014

Low-strength evidence from 3 trials in hip fracture and

Treatment of Anemia in Patients With Heart Disease

Trials With Low Risk of Bias Summary of Findings,

3 trials included a small number of patients with CHF.

Improvements in NYHA class, Moderate

27.6% vs. 50.2% (P 0.01)

Studies with low risk of bias:

Overall, studies with low risk of bias found no

Inconsistent results and the variety of instruments

RR, 1.07 (CI, 0.98 to 1.16)

Studies with low risk of bias

Most data come from 1 large trial, although the

3 of the large trials included patients with advanced

2 observational studies found conflicting results: 1

Continued on following page

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 10/30/2014

3 December 2013 Annals of Internal Medicine Volume 159 Number 11 749

Treatment of Anemia in Patients With Heart Disease

Trials With Low Risk of Bias Summary of Findings,

All patients: 4 (1207)/0

All patients: RR, 0.86

All patients: 3 (958)/0

All patients: RR, 0.60

Imprecision and the small number of trials limit the

2 large trials included a large subgroup of patients

No effect on functional status Low

Increased risk for venous

All other outcomes

signed patients who had hip fracture surgery and a history

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 10/30/2014

Treatment of Anemia in Patients With Heart Disease

Carson et al, 2013 (25)

Carson et al, 2011 (20)

Cooper et al, 2011 (23)

Hbert et al, 2001 (24)

Favors Liberal Transfusion Protocol

Favors Restrictive Transfusion Protocol

1.12 [CI, 0.50 to 2.50]) or MI (RR, 1.02 [CI, 0.39 to

Moderate-strength evidence from 3 trials (5355)

Downloaded From: http://annals.org/ on 10/30/2014

Two small trials, 1 with low risk of bias (53) and 1

Treatment of Anemia in Patients With Heart Disease

Table 2. RCTs of Iron Therapy in Patients With CHF or CHD

Anker et al, 2009 (55), and

Patients: 304 vs. 155

Mean LVEF: 31.9% vs.

GFR: 63.8 vs. 64.8

Ferritin level: 118 vs.

Okonko et al, 2008 (54);

CAD: 79% vs. 73%

Baseline creatinine level:

Iron sucrose IV in varied

Ferritin level: 139 vs.

Toblli et al, 2007 (53);

CAD: 60% vs. 55%

Baseline GFR: 39.8 vs.

Iron sucrose, 200 mg