Back

Heterogenous treatment effects of blood transfusion in hospitalized patients with congestive heart failure

Bosch, N. A.; Law, A. C.; Walkey, A.

2026-03-16 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.03.13.26348365 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Anemia is nearly ubiquitous in hospitalized patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), yet little data informs the decision to transfuse blood in this population. Objectives: To determine average and heterogenous effects of blood transfusion in hospitalized patients with CHF. Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study with individual treatment effect analysis using the Premier Healthcare Database (2022-2024). Adult patients with CHF hemoglobin concentrations between 6.5-7.4 g/dL were included. The exposure was blood transfusion based on hemoglobin concentration threshold of <7.0 g/dL. The primary outcome was hospital free days by day 28 (HFDs). We determined the average effect of transfusion using instrumental variable analysis based on a hemoglobin threshold of 7.0 g/dL and estimated the predicted effects of transfusions on HFDs (i.e., conditional average treatment effects) for individual patients using causal forest machine learning models. Results: We included 31,408 patients in a derivation cohort and 30,677 in a validation cohort, of which 13,437 (42.8%) and 13,334 (43.5%) received transfusions, respectively. The average association between transfusion and HFDs suggested harm (derivation mean difference -1.8 [95% CI -2.3, -1.3] days; validation mean difference -1.5 [95% CI -2.0, -1.0] days). However, the effects of transfusion were heterogenous (p=0.001) with the strongest drivers of transfusion benefit being transfusion on hospital day 1 and low serum bicarbonate concentration. Conclusions: The average association between transfusion and HFDs in hospitalized patients with CHF suggested harm; however, there were potential small benefits early in hospitalization and in those with low serum bicarbonate concentrations.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.