Efficacy of prophylactic transfusions using single donor apheresis platelets versus pooled platelet concentrates in AML/MDS patients receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

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.

Pooled platelet concentrates provide a small benefit over single-donor platelets for patients with platelet refractoriness of any etiology

Background

At our institution, patients with platelet refractoriness (of any etiology) are sometimes switched from apheresis platelets to pooled platelets before human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-matched units become available.

Study design and methods

Seven patients were analyzed. Platelet counts were available from 57 single-unit transfusions (26 pooled, 31 apheresis). A mixed linear effects model was used and significance was determined using a likelihood ratio test.

Results

When analyzed as the only fixed effect in the model, the use of pooled versus single-donor units and time from transfusion to post-transfusion blood sampling each showed a significant effect on platelet count increments. A mixed linear effect model including both factors showed that transfusing a pooled unit correlated with a 4500±2000/µL greater platelet count increment compared with a single-donor unit, and an increase in time from transfusion to post-transfusion blood sampling lowered the platelet count increment by 300±100/µL per hour.

Conclusion

A small but potentially clinically relevant benefit was observed in transfusing pooled random-donor platelets compared with single-donor units for patients with platelet refractoriness (of any etiology).

Thrombocytopenia and Hemostatic Changes in Acute and Chronic Liver Disease: Pathophysiology, Clinical and Laboratory Features, and Management

Thrombocytopenia, defined as a platelet count <150,000/μL, is the most common complication of advanced liver disease or cirrhosis with an incidence of up to 75%. A decrease in platelet count can be the first presenting sign and tends to be proportionally related to the severity of hepatic failure. The pathophysiology of thrombocytopenia in liver disease is multifactorial, including (i) splenomegaly and subsequently increased splenic sequestration of circulating platelets, (ii) reduced hepatic synthesis of thrombopoietin with missing stimulation both of megakaryocytopoiesis and thrombocytopoiesis, resulting in diminished platelet production and release from the bone marrow, and (iii) increased platelet destruction or consumption. Among these pathologies, the decrease in thrombopoietin synthesis has been identified as a central mechanism. Two newly licensed oral thrombopoietin mimetics/receptor agonists, avatrombopag and lusutrombopag, are now available for targeted treatment of thrombocytopenia in patients with advanced liver disease, who are undergoing invasive procedures. This review summarizes recent advances in the understanding of defective but at low level rebalanced hemostasis in stable cirrhosis, discusses clinical consequences and persistent controversial issues related to the inherent bleeding risk, and is focused on a risk-adapted management of thrombocytopenia in patients with chronic liver disease, including a restrictive transfusion regimen.

A comparative study of five plateletpheresis machines in a tertiary care center of India: AmiCORE vs COM.TEC vs Haemonetics MCS+ vs Spectra Optia vs Trima Accel

BACKGROUND

Single donor apheresis platelets are superior in quality, but their usage is limited in a developing country due to cost and time constraints. Hence the product obtained must exceed in terms of yield, donor safety and technical convenience. Previous literature available on cell separators is on older versions.

AIMS

Prospective comparison of 5 latest cell separators (AmiCORE, COM.TEC, Haemonetics MCS+, SpectraOptia and TrimaAccel) for product yield, performance variables and donor adverse effects.

MATERIAL & METHODS

From October 2019 - March 2020, 1108 donors were randomly allotted to a cell separator. Post-donation sample was taken from the donor 15-20 minutes after procedure completion. The platelet yield from the product collected was measured twice (day 0 and day 1). Donor demography, pre-and post-procedural donor peripheral blood values, performance and product variables were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

AmiCORE had an optimal collection efficacy (44.6%) and collection rate (0.037 x 1011/minute). Haemonetics MCS+ had a better collection efficacy (48.4%) and rate (0.038 x 1011/minute). Spectra Optia achieved least procedural time (59.5 minutes), donor adverse effects (6.3%); highest collection efficacy (52.8%) and rate (0.056 x 1011/minute). Trima Accel achieved highest collection rate (0.056 x 1011/minute) and the least product volume (228 ml).

CONCLUSION

Highest collection efficacy was achieved by Trima Accel, highest collection rate by Trima Accel and Spectra Optia, lowest donor adverse effects by Spectra Optia and least number of procedural troubleshooting by COM.TEC. Apart from this, fiscal factors and service availability also need to be considered before choosing a cell separator.

Quality and safety measures in transfusion practice: The experience of eight southern/eastern Mediterranean countries

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Blood transfusion is inherently associated with risks, and little is known regarding the available quality and safety measures in developing countries. No studies or census has been carried out, and therefore, no data on this compelling issue are available.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data emanating from eight Arabic eastern/southern Mediterranean countries who responded to five surveys were collected and tabulated.

RESULTS

Asepsis during phlebotomy, screening for serological and immuno-haematological parameters and appropriate storage conditions are maintained across all countries. Variations in blood component processing exist. Universal leucoreduction is systematically applied in Lebanon. Nucleic acid testing is only performed in Egypt. Aphaeresis procedure, leucoreduction and quality control for blood components are virtually inexistent in Mauritania. Written donor questionnaire is absent in Algeria and Tunisia. Most donor deferral periods for infectious agents are inconsistent with international standards.

CONCLUSION

Gaps in the processing and in the quality/safety measures applied to the manufacture of blood components are quite evident in most eastern/southern Mediterranean countries. The decision of establishing an effective collaboration network and an independent body - aside from WHO - composed of specialists that oversees all transfusion activities in these countries is certainly a crucial step towards ensuring an optimum level of blood safety.

Blood Product Supply in Germany: The Impact of Apheresis and Pooled Platelet Concentrates

BACKGROUND

In Germany, about 60% of all produced platelet concentrates (PCs) are apheresis PCs (APCs). Ongoing discussions on APC reimbursement and costs might lead to a potential shift in pooled PC (PPC)/APC production. Objective of this analysis was to build a comprehensive model from the societal perspective to evaluate consequences associated with shifts in platelet supply and demand.

METHODS

Literature search, desktop researches on platelet supply and demand. Model calculations, time horizon one year: model input from the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute, data 2013. Base case: 19.2% of annual whole blood donations (WBDs) were used for production of 38.5% PPCs, decay of 46,218 PCs (8.0%). Scenarios calculated: variation in PPC proportion of 10-100%.

RESULTS

Base case: during PPC production 41,957-83,913 red blood cell concentrates (RBCCs) are estimated to be lost, which corresponds to 1-2% of annual RBCCs in Germany. Scenarios were calculated for a production of 60-100% PPCs: loss is estimated to be 1.5-5.0% of annual RBCCs (65,430-218,099), decay 54,189-69,022 PCs (9.4-12.0%).

CONCLUSION

Production of different blood components is interlinked and sensitive to unidimensional decisions. Increasing PPC proportion has negative impact on the RBCC production and on the antigen-matched APC donor pool. Completion of the model calculations to predict the optimal PPC/APC proportion would require evidence on the number of refractory patients, donor pool sizes, and incidences of diseases requiring platelet transfusions.

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.

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.

Prophylactic platelet transfusion for prevention of bleeding in patients with haematological disorders after chemotherapy and 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.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the most effective use of platelet transfusion for the prevention of bleeding in patients with haematological disorders undergoing chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 4, 2011), MEDLINE (1950 to Nov 2011), EMBASE (1980 to Nov 2011) and CINAHL (1982 to Nov 2011), using adaptations of the Cochrane RCT search filter, the UKBTS/SRI Transfusion Evidence Library, and ongoing trial databases to 10 November 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in patients with haematological disorders. Four different types of prophylactic platelet transfusion trial were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

In the original review one author initially screened all electronically derived citations and abstracts of papers, identified by the review search strategy, for relevancy. Two authors performed this task in the updated review. Two authors independently assessed the full text of all potentially relevant trials for eligibility. Two authors completed data extraction independently. We requested missing data from the original investigators as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 18 trials that were eligible for inclusion, five of these were still ongoing.Thirteen completed published trials (2331 participants) were included for analysis in the review. The original review contained nine trials (718 participants). This updated review includes six new trials (1818 participants).Two trials (205 participants) in the original review are now excluded because fewer than 80% of participants had a haematological disorder.The four different types of prophylactic platelet transfusion trial, that were the focus of this review, were included within these thirteen trials.Three trials compared prophylactic platelet transfusions versus therapeutic-only platelet transfusions. There was no statistical difference between the number of participants with clinically significant bleeding in the therapeutic and prophylactic arms but the confidence interval was wide (RR 1.66; 95% CI 0.9 to 3.04).The time taken for a clinically significant bleed to occur was longer in the prophylactic platelet transfusion arm. There was a clear reduction in platelet transfusion usage in the therapeutic arm. There was no statistical difference between the number of participants in the therapeutic and prophylactic arms with platelet refractoriness, the only adverse event reported.Three trials compared different platelet count thresholds to trigger administration of prophylactic platelet transfusions. No statistical difference was seen in the number of participants with clinically significant bleeding (RR 1.35; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.9), however, this type of bleeding occurred on fewer days in the group of patients transfused at a higher platelet count threshold (RR 1.72; 95% CI 1.33 to 2.22).The lack of a difference seen for the number of participants with clinically significant bleeding may be due to the studies, in combination, having insufficient power to demonstrate a difference, or due to masking of the effect by a higher number of protocol violations in the groups of patients with a lower platelet count threshold. Using a lower platelet count threshold led to a significant reduction in the number of platelet transfusions used. There were no statistical differences in the number of adverse events reported between the two groups.Six trials compared different doses of prophylactic platelet transfusions. There was no evidence to suggest that using a lower platelet transfusion dose increased: the number of participants with clinically significant (WHO grade 2 or above) (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11), or life-threatening (WHO grade 4) bleeding (RR 1.87; 95% CI 0.86 to 4.08). A higher platelet transfusion dose led to a reduction in the number of platelet transfusion episodes, but an increase in total platelet utilisation. Only one adverse event, wheezing after transfusion, had a significantly higher incidence when standard and high dose transfusions were compared but this difference was not seen when low dose and high dose transfusions were compared. It is therefore likely to be a type I error (false positive).One small trial compared prophylactic platelet transfusions versus platelet-poor plasma. The risk of a significant bleed was decreased in the prophylactic platelet transfusion arm (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95) and this was statistically significant.All studies had threats to validity; the majority of these were due to methodology of the studies not being described in adequate detail.Although it was not the main focus of the review, it was interesting to note that in one of the pre-specified sub-group analyses (treatment type) two studies showed that patients receiving an autologous transplant have a lower risk of bleeding than patients receiving intensive chemotherapy or an allogeneic transplant (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.82).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These conclusions refer to the four different types of platelet transfusion trial separately. Firstly, there is no evidence that a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy prevents bleeding. Two large trials comparing a therapeutic versus prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy, that have not yet been published, should provide important new data on this comparison. Secondly, there is no evidence, at the moment, to suggest a change from the current practice of using a platelet count of 10 x 10(9)/L. However, the evidence for a platelet count threshold of 10 x 10(9)/L being equivalent to 20 x 10(9)/L is not as definitive as it would first appear and further research is required. Thirdly, platelet dose does not affect the number of patients with significant bleeding, but whether it affects number of days each patient bleeds for is as yet undetermined. There is no evidence that platelet dose affects the incidence of WHO grade 4 bleeding.Prophylactic platelet transfusions were more effective than platelet-poor plasma at preventing bleeding.

Immunohematopoietic stem cell transplantation in Cape Town: a ten-year outcome analysis in adults

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Immunohematopoietic stem cell transplantation has curative potential in selected hematologic disorders. Stem cell transplantation was introduced into South Africa in 1970 as a structured experimental and clinical program. In this report, we summarize the demography and outcome by disease category, gender, and type of procedure in patients older than 18 years of age who were seen from April 1995 to December 2002.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective analysis included 247 individuals over 18 years of age for whom complete data were available. These patients received grafts mostly from peripheral blood with the appropriate stem cell population recovered by apheresis.

RESULTS

Patient ages ranged from 20 to 65 years with a median age of 42 years. There were 101 females and 146 males. There were no withdrawals and 63% survived to the end of the study. At 96 months of follow-up, a stable plateau was reached for each disease category. Median survival was 3.3 years (n=6, 14.6%) for acute lymphoblastic anemia, 3.1 years (n=44, 18%) for acute myeloid leukemia, 2.8 years (n=47, 19%) for chronic granulocytic leukemia, 2.8 years (n=71, 29%) for lymphoma, 1.5 years (n=23, 9%) for myeloma, 1.43 years (n=10, 4%) for aplasia, and 1.4 years (n=38, 15%) for a miscellaneous group comprising less than 10 examples each. Multivariate analysis showed that only diagnosis and age had a significant impact on survival, but these two variables might be interrelated. There was no significant difference in outcome by source of graft.

CONCLUSION

The results confirm that procedures carried out in a properly constituted and dedicated unit, which meets established criteria and strictly observes treatment protocols, generate results comparable to those in a First World referral center. Low rates of transplant-related mortality, rejection and graft-versus-host disease are confirmed, but the benefits cannot be extrapolated outside of academically oriented and supervised facilities.

Blood still kills: six strategies to further reduce allogeneic blood transfusion-related mortality

After reviewing the relative frequency of the causes of allogeneic blood transfusion-related mortality in the United States today, we present 6 possible strategies for further reducing such transfusion-related mortality. These are (1) avoidance of unnecessary transfusions through the use of evidence-based transfusion guidelines, to reduce potentially fatal (infectious as well as noninfectious) transfusion complications; (2) reduction in the risk of transfusion-related acute lung injury in recipients of platelet transfusions through the use of single-donor platelets collected from male donors, or female donors without a history of pregnancy or who have been shown not to have white blood cell (WBC) antibodies; (3) prevention of hemolytic transfusion reactions through the augmentation of patient identification procedures by the addition of information technologies, as well as through the prevention of additional red blood cell alloantibody formation in patients who are likely to need multiple transfusions in the future; (4) avoidance of pooled blood products (such as pooled whole blood-derived platelets) to reduce the risk of transmission of emerging transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs) and the residual risk from known TTIs (especially transfusion-associated sepsis [TAS]); (5) WBC reduction of cellular blood components administered in cardiac surgery to prevent the poorly understood increased mortality seen in cardiac surgery patients in association with the receipt of non-WBC-reduced (compared with WBC-reduced) transfusion; and (6) pathogen reduction of platelet and plasma components to prevent the transfusion transmission of most emerging, potentially fatal TTIs and the residual risk of known TTIs (especially TAS).

A general change of the platelet transfusion policy from apheresis platelet concentrates to pooled platelet concentrates is associated with a sharp increase in donor exposure and infection rates

BACKGROUND

We compare the actual with the potential donor exposure and possible infection rates in the Hanover Medical School (MHH) platelet (PLT) transfusion recipients if the current MHH standard of apheresis PLT concentrate (A-PC) supply would be replaced by a pooled PLT concentrate (P-PC) transfusion regimen.

DONORS PATIENTS AND METHODS

The electronic records of the MHH Institute of Transfusion Medicine and the MHH Department of Medical Controlling were evaluated to assess the development of PLT needs and supply at MHH from 2003-2006. For 2006, we evaluated all PLT transfusion recipients with respect to their overall transfusion needs, classified them for low and high PLT transfusion needs, and related them to the diagnostic groups that underlie their PLT demands. We assumed a P-PC preparation procedure using 4 whole blood-derived buffy coats for all calculations for potential donor exposure. To predict the possible infection rates of an unrecognized viral infection with low prevalence in the general population to A-PC or to P-PC recipients and the influence of neutralizing agent specific antibodies (NAB), we established a mathematical contamination/infection model based on the current PLT transfusion mode and data about GBV-C virus infection among Hanover blood donors.

RESULTS

From 2003 to 2006, the 1,300-1,400 persons comprising MHH apheresis donor pool covered a 36% increase in PC transfusions. The exclusive use of P-PCs instead of A-PC would require a total of 36,240-49,276 whole blood donations to meet MHH demands, corresponding to a more than 1 log step increase in donor exposure. For individual hematological patients, the change to P-PCs would imply an 80-125%, for individual surgical patients a 40-50% higher donor exposure. Our infection model revealed an approximately 4 times higher infection.

CONCLUSIONS

A change to P-PC would imply a more than one log step higher donor exposure, and an unrecognized infection with a prevalence around 1% leads to an up to 4 times higher infection rate. A general change in the PC transfusion policy that favors P-PCs is dangerous and must be avoided.

Efficacy and Adverse Events of Platelet Transfusion Product-Specific Differences

SUMMARY: TWO PREPARATIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR PLATELET TRANSFUSION: single-donor apheresis platelet concentrates (APC) and pooled platelet concentrates (PPC) prepared from 4-6 whole blood units. Clear advantages of APC over PPC are a markedly reduced donor exposure of recipients, and easier logistics when attempting a complete supply with ABO-identical and Rh-compatible platelet concentrates. Regulations should aim at complete ABO-identical platelet transfusions because major and minor ABO-incompatible platelet transfusions are probably associated with significantly increased morbidity and mortality. The main advantage of PPC is lower costs. Preparation of PPC is however inevitably accompanied by substantial wastage of plasma and red cells. Only major supraregional blood transfusion centers can guarantee full-coverage supply with ABO-identical and Rh-compatible PPC. Whether APC are more effective than PPC and associated with fewer septic platelet transfusion reactions as shown in some but not all studies, has to be examined in future prospective controlled trials.