Evidence mapPaperPMID 42507445Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2026

Restrictive vs Liberal Transfusion Strategy After Myocardial Infarction: A Post Hoc Analysis of the MINT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Marnie Bertolet, Francois Martin Carrier, Simone Glynn, J Dawn Abbott, Andrew P Defilippis, Tabassome Simon, Christopher B Fordyce, Janek Senaratne, Brian J Potter, Brandon M Herbert and 10 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02981407 (Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02981407 phase3completednot on this map

Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion

TypeinterventionalSponsorRutgers, The State University of New JerseyRan2017 to 2023Enrolled3,506ConditionsMyocardial Infarction, AnemiaArmsRed Blood Cell Transfusion
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Marnie BertoletDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Francois Martin CarrierDepartment of Anesthesiology, Critical Care Division, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Simone GlynnNational Heart Lung and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland (retired).
J Dawn AbbottDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brown University and Lifespan Cardiovascular Institute, Providence, Rhode Island.
Andrew P DefilippisDivision of Cardiovascular Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
Tabassome SimonSorbonne Université, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP), Paris, France.
Christopher B FordyceDivision of Cardiology, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Janek SenaratneDepartment of Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Brian J PotterInterventional Cardiology, Centre Hospitalier de l' Université de Montréal (CHUM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Brandon M HerbertDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Sunil V RaoNYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Adriano CaixetaDepartment of Medicine, Discipline of Cardiology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Meechai TessaleeDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago AdventHealth Hinsdale, Hinsdale, Illinois.
Howard A CooperDivision of Cardiology, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, New York.
Pedro Beraldo de AndradeBrazilian Clinical Research Institute, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Frederico Toledo Campo Dall'OrtoSanta Lucia Hospital, Poços de Caldas, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Johanne SilvainInstitut de Cardiologie, Hôpital de la Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France.
Jeffrey L CarsonGeneral Internal Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Rutgers, New Jersey.
Maria Mori BrooksDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion (MINT) Trial Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The decision to transfuse a patient with myocardial infarction (MI) and anemia at a higher vs lower hemoglobin threshold must consider the potential benefit of reduced risk of 30-day death or MI and the potential risk of heart failure. Objectives: To estimate bayesian posterior risk differences and posterior probabilities that a liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategy is associated with reduced risk of 30-day death or MI and whether the probabilities exceed predefined thresholds. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion (MINT) trial recruited adults from April 26, 2017, to April 14, 2023, who were hospitalized with MI and anemia at 144 sites in 6 countries. Statistical analysis was performed from July 31, 2024, to February 18, 2026. Intervention: The MINT trial randomized participants to a restrictive (transfuse if hemoglobin is <7 to 8 g/dL) or liberal (maintain hemoglobin at >10 g/dL) transfusion strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Bayesian posterior risk differences were estimated for 30-day death or MI and for heart failure using 3 prior beliefs regarding the treatment strategies: noninformative, liberal strategy superiority, or restrictive strategy superiority. Results: The mean (SD) age of the 3504 participants was 72.1 (11.6) years and 1911 (54.5%) were men. Compared with the restrictive strategy, the risk of 30-day death or MI with the liberal strategy was 1.4% (95% credible interval, -0.8% to 3.5%) to 2.4% (95% credible interval, 0.3%-4.6%) lower, depending on prior beliefs. The probability that the liberal strategy was associated with a lower risk of 30-day death or MI ranged from 89.1% to 98.8%, and the probability that a liberal strategy was associated with at least 1 less death or MI per 100 treated was between 62.7% and 90.4%. Conversely, the risk of heart failure with the liberal strategy was 0.2% (95% credible interval, -1.6% to 1.2%) to 0.6% (95% credible interval, -2.0% to 0.8%) higher compared with the restrictive strategy, depending on prior beliefs. The probability that the liberal strategy was associated with a higher risk of heart failure ranged from 60.6% to 80.0%, and the probability that a liberal strategy was associated with at least 1 more heart failure event per 100 treated was between 13.3% and 29.3%. Conclusions and Relevance: This post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial of patients with MI and anemia suggests that a liberal transfusion strategy was associated with a lower risk of 30-day death or MI, outweighing the increased risk of heart failure. Consistent with guideline recommendations and according to patients' values and clinician risk assessment, a liberal transfusion strategy may be reasonable. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02981407.

Indexed as

AnemiaBlood TransfusionMyocardial InfarctionAgedBayes TheoremFemaleHeart FailureHemoglobinsHumansMaleMiddle AgedHemoglobins

Identifiers

PMID42507445
PMCPMC13409005

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.