Transfusion de plaquettes : produits, indications, dose, seuil, efficacité

Platelet transfusion in adults: An update

Many patients worldwide receive platelet components (PCs) through the transfusion of diverse types of blood components. PC transfusions are essential for the treatment of central thrombocytopenia of diverse causes, and such treatment is beneficial in patients at risk of severe bleeding. PC transfusions account for almost 10% of all the blood components supplied by blood services, but they are associated with about 3.25 times as many severe reactions (attributable to transfusion) than red blood cell transfusions after stringent in-process leukoreduction to less than 10⁶ residual cells per blood component. PCs are not homogeneous, due to the considerable differences between donors. Furthermore, the modes of PC collection and preparation, the safety precautions taken to limit either the most common (allergic-type reactions and febrile non-hemolytic reactions) or the most severe (bacterial contamination, pulmonary lesions) adverse reactions, and storage and conservation methods can all result in so-called PC "storage lesions". Some storage lesions affect PC quality, with implications for patient outcome. Good transfusion practices should result in higher levels of platelet recovery and efficacy, and lower complication rates. These practices include a matching of tissue ABH antigens whenever possible, and of platelet HLA (and, to a lesser extent, HPA) antigens in immunization situations. This review provides an overview of all the available information relating to platelet transfusion, from donor and donation to bedside transfusion, and considers the impact of the measures applied to increase transfusion efficacy while improving safety and preventing transfusion inefficacy and refractoriness. It also considers alternatives to platelet component (PC) transfusion.

[Comparative study on platelet transfusion in Lorraine-Champagne and Alsace in 2015]

OBJECTIVES

To find explanations for the observed differences of platelets concentrates (PC) deliveries between 2 French regions, Lorraine-Champagne (LOCH) and Alsace (ALSA).

METHODS

This is a non-interventional prospective study, performed during 30 days in 2015 in intensive care, cardiovascular surgery and onco-hematological wards of 8 LOCH and ALSA hospitals. Questionnaires listing clinical and biological parameters were attached to the prescription forms and filled in at each PC prescription.

RESULTS

In all, 290 patients, 1093 prescriptions and 1093 deliveries of PC were analyzed. The pre-transfusional context (patient weight, prophylactic or curative situation, pre-transfusional platelet count) were homogenous. The phasing of the prescription forms wording had a direct impact on the doses' formulation : 100 % of the LOCH forms were expressed in platelet quantity (PQ), vs 22 % in ALSA. The mean interval between 2 transfusions was 2.9 days in ALSA vs 4.9 days in LOCH. The mean PQ/delivery was higher in ALSA (5.6.10¹¹ vs 4.0.10¹¹ in LOCH). The delivered PQs were compared to the 2003 French recommendations that were in force in 2015. Twenty-seven percent of the LOCH delivered PQs were in the recommended interval, vs Forty-nine percent in ALSA. Due to the systematic delivery of a single PC unit, including weights>80Kg, LOCH presented 63 % insufficient PQ deliveries. Twenty-two percent of the deliveries in ALSA were over the recommended interval, mostly linked with the simultaneous delivery of a second PC.

CONCLUSION

This study identifies disparities in terms of prescription and delivery between LOCH and ALSA, which may explain their respective PC consumption levels.

Platelet transfusion: Current challenges

Since the late sixties, platelet concentrates are transfused to patients presenting with severe thrombocytopenia, platelet function defects, injuries, or undergoing surgery, to prevent the risk of bleeding or to treat actual hemorrhage. Current practices differ according to the country or even in different hospitals and teams. Although crucial advances have been made during the last decades, questions and debates still arise about the right doses to transfuse, the use of prophylactic or therapeutic strategies, the nature and quality of PC, the storage conditions, the monitoring of transfusion efficacy and the microbiological and immunological safety of platelet transfusion. Finally, new challenges are emerging with potential new platelet products, including cold stored or in vitro produced platelets. The most debated of these points are reviewed.

[Adaptation of platelet concentrates delivery to HAS/ANSM requirements evolution in EFS Grand-Est]

Evolution of French HAS/ANSM guidelines in 2015 about optimal platelet transfusion dose for patients brought us to review about our practices for platelet concentrates delivery in EFS Grand-Est region. In addition, pathogen inactivation in platelet concentrates has been implemented all over the country and transfusion centers have merged. All these changes required harmonization. In this context, our major issue was to answer patient's requirements, according to the new guidelines keeping in mind the cost effectiveness on public finances. We report here on the changes in our practices and their impacts.

Whole blood transfusion closest to the point-of-injury during French remote military operations

To improve the survival of combat casualties, interest in the earliest resort to whole blood (WB) transfusion on the battlefield has been emphasized. Providing volume, coagulation factors, plasma, and oxygenation capacity, WB appears actually as an ideal product severe trauma management. Whole blood can be collected in advance and stored for subsequent use, or can be drawn directly on the battlefield, once a soldier is wounded, from an uninjured companion and immediately transfused.Such concepts require a great control of risks at each step, especially regarding ABO mismatches, and transfusion-transmitted diseases. We present here the "warm and fresh" WB field transfusion program implemented among the French armed forces. We focus on the followed strategies to make it applicable on the battlefield, even during special operations and remote settings, and safe for recipients as well as for donors.

Comparison of different platelet count thresholds to guide administration of prophylactic platelet transfusion for preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders after myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic due to bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated in 2012 that addressed four separate questions: prophylactic versus therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy; prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold; prophylactic platelet transfusion dose; and platelet transfusions compared to alternative treatments. This review has now been split into four smaller reviews looking at these questions individually; this review compares prophylactic platelet transfusion thresholds.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether different platelet transfusion thresholds for administration of prophylactic platelet transfusions (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding) affect the efficacy and safety of prophylactic platelet transfusions in preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, 23 July 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 23 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in people with haematological disorders (receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy or undergoing HSCT) that compared different thresholds for administration of prophylactic platelet transfusions (low trigger (5 x 10(9)/L); standard trigger (10 x 10(9)/L); higher trigger (20 x 10(9)/L, 30 x 10(9)/L, 50 x 10(9)/L); or alternative platelet trigger (for example platelet mass)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials met our predefined inclusion criteria and were included for analysis in the review (499 participants). All three trials compared a standard trigger (10 x 10(9)/L) versus a higher trigger (20 x 10(9)/L or 30 x 10(9)/L). None of the trials compared a low trigger versus a standard trigger or an alternative platelet trigger. The trials were conducted between 1991 and 2001 and enrolled participants from fairly comparable patient populations.The original review contained four trials (658 participants); in the previous update of this review we excluded one trial (159 participants) because fewer than 80% of participants had a haematological disorder. We identified no new trials in this update of the review.Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. None of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, and all the included studies had some threats to validity.Three studies reported the number of participants with at least one clinically significant bleeding episode within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants with a clinically significant bleeding episode between the standard and higher trigger groups (three studies; 499 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.90; low-quality evidence).One study reported the number of days with a clinically significant bleeding event (adjusted for repeated measures). There was no evidence of a difference in the number of days of bleeding per participant between the standard and higher trigger groups (one study; 255 participants; relative proportion of days with World Health Organization Grade 2 or worse bleeding (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.48, P = 0.162; authors' own results; low-quality evidence).Two studies reported the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding. There was no evidence of any difference in the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding between a standard trigger level and a higher trigger level (two studies; 421 participants; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.88; low-quality evidence).Only one study reported the time to first bleeding episode. There was no evidence of any difference in the time to the first bleeding episode between a standard trigger level and a higher trigger level (one study; 255 participants; hazard ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.91; low-quality evidence).Only one study reported on all-cause mortality within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no evidence of any difference in all-cause mortality between standard and higher trigger groups (one study; 255 participants; RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.81; low-quality evidence).Three studies reported on the number of platelet transfusions per participant. Two studies reported on the mean number of platelet transfusions per participant. There was a significant reduction in the number of platelet transfusions per participant in the standard trigger group (two studies, mean difference -2.09, 95% CI -3.20 to -0.99; low-quality evidence).One study reported on the number of transfusion reactions. There was no evidence to demonstrate any difference in transfusion reactions between the standard and higher trigger groups (one study; 79 participants; RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.09).None of the studies reported on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with haematological disorders who are thrombocytopenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT, we found low-quality evidence that a standard trigger level (10 x 10(9)/L) is associated with no increase in the risk of bleeding when compared to a higher trigger level (20 x 10(9)/L or 30 x 10(9)/L). There was low-quality evidence that a standard trigger level is associated with a decreased number of transfusion episodes when compared to a higher trigger level (20 x 10(9)/L or 30 x 10(9)/L).Findings from this review were based on three studies and 499 participants. Without further evidence, it is reasonable to continue with the current practice of administering prophylactic platelet transfusions using the standard trigger level (10 x 10(9)/L) in the absence of other risk factors for bleeding.

Improving platelet transfusion safety: biomedical and technical considerations

Platelet concentrates account for near 10% of all labile blood components but are responsible for more than 25% of the reported adverse events. Besides factors related to patients themselves, who may be particularly at risk of side effects because of their underlying illness, there are aspects of platelet collection and storage that predispose to adverse events. Platelets for transfusion are strongly activated by collection through disposal equipment, which can stress the cells, and by preservation at 22 °C with rotation or rocking, which likewise leads to platelet activation, perhaps more so than storage at 4 °C. Lastly, platelets constitutively possess a very large number of bioactive components that may elicit pro-inflammatory reactions when infused into a patient. This review aims to describe approaches that may be crucial to minimising side effects while optimising safety and quality. We suggest that platelet transfusion is complex, in part because of the complexity of the "material" itself: platelets are highly versatile cells and the transfusion process adds a myriad of variables that present many challenges for preserving basal platelet function and preventing dysfunctional activation of the platelets. The review also presents information showing--after years of exhaustive haemovigilance--that whole blood buffy coat pooled platelet components are extremely safe compared to the gold standard (i.e. apheresis platelet components), both in terms of acquired infections and of immunological/inflammatory hazards.

Different doses of prophylactic platelet transfusion for preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders after myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic due to bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and updated in 2012 that addressed four separate questions: prophylactic versus therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy; prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold; prophylactic platelet transfusion dose; and platelet transfusions compared to alternative treatments. This review has now been split into four smaller reviews; this review compares different platelet transfusion doses.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether different doses of prophylactic platelet transfusions (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding) affect their efficacy and safety in preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy with or without haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 23 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in people with malignant haematological disorders or undergoing HSCT that compared different platelet component doses (low dose 1.1 x 10(11)/m(2) ± 25%, standard dose 2.2 x 10(11)/m(2) ± 25%, high dose 4.4 x 10(11)/m(2) ± 25%).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials (1814 participants) in this review; six were conducted during one course of treatment (chemotherapy or HSCT).Overall the methodological quality of studies was low to moderate across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. None of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, and all the included studies had some threats to validity.Five studies reported the number of participants with at least one clinically significant bleeding episode within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no difference in the number of participants with a clinically significant bleeding episode between the low-dose and standard-dose groups (four studies; 1170 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.13; moderate-quality evidence); low-dose and high-dose groups (one study; 849 participants; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11; moderate-quality evidence); or high-dose and standard-dose groups (two studies; 951 participants; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11; moderate-quality evidence).Three studies reported the number of days with a clinically significant bleeding event per participant. There was no difference in the number of days of bleeding per participant between the low-dose and standard-dose groups (two studies; 230 participants; mean difference -0.17, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.17; low quality evidence). One study (855 participants) showed no difference in the number of days of bleeding per participant between high-dose and standard-dose groups, or between low-dose and high-dose groups (849 participants).Three studies reported the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding. There was no difference in the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding between a low-dose and a standard-dose platelet transfusion policy (three studies; 1059 participants; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.92; low-quality evidence); low-dose and high-dose groups (one study; 849 participants; RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.77; low-quality evidence); or high-dose and standard-dose groups (one study; 855 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.68; low-quality evidence).Two studies reported the time to first bleeding episodes; we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Both studies (959 participants) individually found that the time to first bleeding episode was either the same, or longer, in the low-dose group compared to the standard-dose group. One study (855 participants) found that the time to the first bleeding episode was the same in the high-dose group compared to the standard-dose group.Three studies reported all-cause mortality within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no difference in all-cause mortality between treatment arms (low-dose versus standard-dose: three studies; 1070 participants; RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.70 to 5.93; low-quality evidence; low-dose versus high-dose: one study; 849 participants; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.54; low-quality evidence; and high-dose versus standard-dose: one study; 855 participants; RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.81; low-quality evidence).Six studies reported the number of platelet transfusions; we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Two studies (959 participants) out of three (1070 participants) found that a low-dose transfusion strategy led to more transfusion episodes than a standard-dose. One study (849 participants) found that a low-dose transfusion strategy led to more transfusion episodes than a high-dose strategy. One study (855 participants) out of three (1007 participants) found no difference in the number of platelet transfusions between the high-dose and standard-dose groups.One study reported on transfusion reactions. This study's authors suggested that a high-dose platelet transfusion strategy may lead to a higher rate of transfusion-related adverse events.None of the studies reported quality-of-life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In haematology patients who are thrombocytopenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT, we found no evidence to suggest that a low-dose platelet transfusion policy is associated with an increased bleeding risk compared to a standard-dose or high-dose policy, or that a high-dose platelet transfusion policy is associated with a decreased risk of bleeding when compared to a standard-dose policy.A low-dose platelet transfusion strategy leads to an increased number of transfusion episodes compared to a standard-dose strategy. A high-dose platelet transfusion strategy does not decrease the number of transfusion episodes per participant compared to a standard-dose regimen, and it may increase the number of transfusion-related adverse events.Findings from this review would suggest a change from current practice, with low-dose platelet transfusions used for people receiving in-patient treatment for their haematological disorder and high-dose platelet transfusion strategies not being used routinely.

A therapeutic-only versus prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy for preventing bleeding in patients with haematological disorders after myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in thrombocytopenic patients with bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004 and updated in 2012 that addressed four separate questions: therapeutic-only versus prophylactic platelet transfusion policy; prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold; prophylactic platelet transfusion dose; and platelet transfusions compared to alternative treatments. We have now split this review into four smaller reviews looking at these questions individually; this review is the first part of the original review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy (platelet transfusions given when patient bleeds) is as effective and safe as a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding, usually when the platelet count falls below a given trigger level) in patients with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950) and ongoing trial databases to 23 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent or treat bleeding in patients with malignant haematological disorders receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy or undergoing HSCT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven RCTs that compared therapeutic platelet transfusions to prophylactic platelet transfusions in haematology patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT. One trial is still ongoing, leaving six trials eligible with a total of 1195 participants. These trials were conducted between 1978 and 2013 and enrolled participants from fairly comparable patient populations. We were able to critically appraise five of these studies, which contained separate data for each arm, and were unable to perform quantitative analysis on one study that did not report the numbers of participants in each treatment arm.Overall the quality of evidence per outcome was low to moderate according to the GRADE approach. None of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, and all the studies identified had some threats to validity. We deemed only one study to be at low risk of bias in all domains other than blinding.Two RCTs (801 participants) reported at least one bleeding episode within 30 days of the start of the study. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis due to considerable statistical heterogeneity between studies. The statistical heterogeneity seen may relate to the different methods used in studies for the assessment and grading of bleeding. The underlying patient diagnostic and treatment categories also appeared to have some effect on bleeding risk. Individually these studies showed a similar effect, that a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion strategy was associated with an increased risk of clinically significant bleeding compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy. Number of days with a clinically significant bleeding event per participant was higher in the therapeutic-only group than in the prophylactic group (one RCT; 600 participants; mean difference 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.90; moderate-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference in the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding between a therapeutic-only transfusion policy and a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (two RCTs; 801 participants; risk ratio (RR) 4.91, 95% CI 0.86 to 28.12; low-quality evidence). Two RCTs (801 participants) reported time to first bleeding episode. As there was considerable heterogeneity between the studies, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Both studies individually found that time to first bleeding episode was shorter in the therapeutic-only group compared with the prophylactic platelet transfusion group.There was insufficient evidence to determine any difference in all-cause mortality within 30 days of the start of the study using a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (two RCTs; 629 participants). Mortality was a rare event, and therefore larger studies would be needed to establish the effect of these alternative strategies. There was a clear reduction in the number of platelet transfusions per participant in the therapeutic-only arm (two RCTs, 991 participants; standardised mean reduction of 0.50 platelet transfusions per participant, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.37; moderate-quality evidence). None of the studies reported quality of life. There was no evidence of any difference in the frequency of adverse events, such as transfusion reactions, between a therapeutic-only and prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (two RCTs; 991 participants; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.68), although the confidence intervals were wide.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to moderate-grade evidence that a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy is associated with increased risk of bleeding when compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy in haematology patients who are thrombocytopenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT. There is insufficient evidence to determine any difference in mortality rates and no evidence of any difference in adverse events between a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy and a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy. A therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy is associated with a clear reduction in the number of platelet components administered.

Platelets and cytokines: How and why?

For patients with platelet deficiencies, platelet components are therapeutic products for which there is no substitute. However, transfusion complications are more frequent with this labile blood product than with others. This is attributable to products secreted by the platelets themselves, including a variety of cytokines, chemokines, and biological response modifiers, some of which are secreted in large quantities following platelet activation. Why platelets are activated and prone to releasing these molecules during certain inflammatory and innate immune responses is not yet fully understood, but it could be due to several parameters including incompatibilities between blood donors and recipients, the process of platelet preparation and preservation, and the ability of the donor's immune system to sense danger presented by external stimuli during the blood donation process. This review presents our current knowledge of how the platelets that constitute the platelet component for transfusion are sources of cytokines and biological response modifiers and discusses methods to improve the quality of blood transfusion products and safety for patients.

[Pathogen inactivation of platelets: organization consequences for platelet transfusion]

In the past few years, pathogen reduction technologies for labile blood products have been part of the enhancement of global transfusion safety regarding residual risks of transmitting infectious pathogens. Having carried out a feasibility study for the implementation of pathogen inactivation of platelet concentrates by means of the amotosalen/HCl/UVA (Intercept™) technology, and participated to a reinforced haemovigilance study, we took the opportunity to analyze the organization consequences for platelet concentrates inventory and distribution. This impact study first indicated that those novel needs forced the blood donation service, as well as the labile blood product preparation laboratory, to review and improve practices; secondly, it showed that the routine implementation has little (no major) consequence in the overall organization, independently of the economic consequences (not covered here).

[Pathogen reduction for platelets: available techniques and recent developments]

The will to reach for blood components a microbiological safety comparable to that of plasma-derived drugs led to the development of numerous pathogen reduction research programs for red blood cells and\or platelets in the 1990s. A consensus conference organized in 2007 allowed to define the main steps and precautions to be taken for the implementation of these processes. In the specific case of platelet concentrates, three processes stay this day in the run, even if they are not at the same development stage. A process using ultraviolet C only is at the stage of preclinical studies. The Mirasol® process, based on the activation of riboflavin by exposure to ultraviolet A and ultraviolet B is CE marked (class IIb), and a clinical study was published in 2010. The Intercept® process, involving the activation of a psoralen molecule by exposure to ultraviolet A, is CE marked (class III) since 2002, and has been licensed in France since 2005, in Germany since 2005 and in Switzerland since 2010. At least 12 clinical studies have been published. In regard to this last pathogen reduction process, the medical and scientific documentation, from in vitro investigations to post-marketing observational studies, is much more developed than the corresponding documentation of some innovative processes at the time of their generalization, such as the SAG-mannitol solution for red cell concentrates in 1979, leukoreduction filters for platelets and red cells concentrates in the 1990s, the solvent detergent therapeutic plasma in 1992 or the methylene blue therapeutic plasma in 2006.

[Techniques of preparation and indications of labile blood products]

Labile blood products are obtained from samples of whole blood or aphaeresis. The techniques of preparation evolve with technological advances, which allow both an increasing automation and an intensification of the sanitary safety of the blood products. Over the last ten years, thanks to the availability of new technologies, several measures have been introduced in order to reduce the risk of transmission of pathogens and prevent the onset of transfusion-related acute lung injury (TRALI): leukoreduction, use of platelet storage solutions, inactivation of plasma and presumably of platelets in a very near future. The control of transfusion risk also depends on proper use of labile blood products. To assist the prescriber in his treatment options and to standardize practices, the French Agency for Sanitary Safety of Health Products has issued recommendations in terms of utilization of blood products that are detailed in this review of major labile blood products available.