My problem with this is that the study is unblinded; and the oodles of bias shows in this little stat:
>Here is another endpoint: Death due to cardiac disease was 74% higher in the restrictive arm. The CI went from 1.26 to 2.4.
This is an insane stat, and it makes me think the adjudicators of the cause of the death were biased away from blaming cardiac disease. When I declare death in patients; if I have no direct cause in mind I just put 'cardiovascular arrest'. If I were part of this unblinded study, I'd think three times before putting it for the person I just spent a couple of days filling with blood.
This then transitions over to 'adverse effects'. I am very wary of increasing blood viscosity and volume in cardiac patients; my rule of thumb is that absent defects in blood production proper, the body has the compensatory response of anemia of chronic disease for a reason.
I read the news late and just got to this.
My problem with this is that the study is unblinded; and the oodles of bias shows in this little stat:
>Here is another endpoint: Death due to cardiac disease was 74% higher in the restrictive arm. The CI went from 1.26 to 2.4.
This is an insane stat, and it makes me think the adjudicators of the cause of the death were biased away from blaming cardiac disease. When I declare death in patients; if I have no direct cause in mind I just put 'cardiovascular arrest'. If I were part of this unblinded study, I'd think three times before putting it for the person I just spent a couple of days filling with blood.
This then transitions over to 'adverse effects'. I am very wary of increasing blood viscosity and volume in cardiac patients; my rule of thumb is that absent defects in blood production proper, the body has the compensatory response of anemia of chronic disease for a reason.