1
|
Estcourt LJ, Stanworth SJ, Doree C, Hopewell S, Trivella M, Murphy MF. 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. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015:CD010983. [PMID: 26576687 PMCID: PMC4717525 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010983.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lise J Estcourt
- NHS Blood and TransplantHaematology/Transfusion MedicineLevel 2, John Radcliffe HospitalHeadingtonOxfordUKOX3 9BQ
| | - Simon J Stanworth
- Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and the University of OxfordNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research CentreJohn Radcliffe Hospital, Headley WayHeadingtonOxfordUKOX3 9BQ
| | - Carolyn Doree
- NHS Blood and TransplantSystematic Review InitiativeJohn Radcliffe HospitalOxfordUKOX3 9BQ
| | - Sally Hopewell
- University of OxfordCentre for Statistics in MedicineWolfson CollegeLinton RoadOxfordOxfordshireUKOX2 6UD
| | - Marialena Trivella
- University of OxfordCentre for Statistics in MedicineWolfson CollegeLinton RoadOxfordOxfordshireUKOX2 6UD
| | - Michael F Murphy
- Oxford University Hospitals and the University of OxfordNHS Blood and Transplant; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research CentreJohn Radcliffe HospitalHeadingtonOxfordUK
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Estcourt LJ, Stanworth S, Doree C, Trivella M, Hopewell S, Blanco P, Murphy MF. Different doses of prophylactic platelet transfusion for preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders after myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015:CD010984. [PMID: 26505729 PMCID: PMC4724938 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010984.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lise J Estcourt
- NHS Blood and TransplantHaematology/Transfusion MedicineLevel 2, John Radcliffe HospitalHeadingtonOxfordUKOX3 9BQ
| | - Simon Stanworth
- Oxford University Hospitals and the University of OxfordNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research CentreOxfordUKOX3 9BQ
| | - Carolyn Doree
- NHS Blood and TransplantSystematic Review InitiativeJohn Radcliffe HospitalOxfordUKOX3 9BQ
| | - Marialena Trivella
- University of OxfordCentre for Statistics in MedicineBotnar Research CentreWindmill RoadOxfordUKOX3 7LD
| | - Sally Hopewell
- University of OxfordCentre for Statistics in MedicineBotnar Research CentreWindmill RoadOxfordUKOX3 7LD
| | - Patricia Blanco
- NHS Blood and TransplantSystematic Review InitiativeJohn Radcliffe HospitalOxfordUKOX3 9BQ
| | - Michael F Murphy
- Oxford University Hospitals and the University of OxfordNHS Blood and Transplant; National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research CentreJohn Radcliffe HospitalHeadingtonOxfordUK
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Crighton GL, Estcourt LJ, Wood EM, Trivella M, Doree C, Stanworth S. A therapeutic-only versus prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy for preventing bleeding in patients with haematological disorders after myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015:CD010981. [PMID: 26422767 PMCID: PMC4610062 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd010981.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gemma L Crighton
- Transfusion Outcome Research Collaborative, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University and Australian Red Cross Blood Service, The Alfred Centre, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, VICTORIA, Australia, 3004
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Estcourt L, Stanworth S, Doree C, Hopewell S, Murphy MF, Tinmouth A, Heddle N. Prophylactic platelet transfusion for prevention of bleeding in patients with haematological disorders after chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012:CD004269. [PMID: 22592695 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd004269.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 56] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lise Estcourt
- Haematology/Transfusion Medicine, NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, UK.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Alhumaidan H, Cheves T, Holme S, Sweeney JD. Manufacture of pooled platelets in additive solution and storage in an ELX container after an overnight warm temperature hold of platelet-rich plasma. Am J Clin Pathol 2011; 136:638-45. [PMID: 21917688 DOI: 10.1309/ajcpfd87thdwcsva] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/17/2022] Open
Abstract
The processing of whole blood-derived platelet-rich plasma (PRP) to a platelet concentrate and platelet-poor plasma is currently performed within 8 hours to comply with the requirements to manufacture fresh frozen plasma. Maintaining PRP at room temperature for a longer period can have the advantage of shifting the completion of component manufacture onto day shifts. Pairs of ABO-identical prepooled platelets were manufactured by the PRP method, using the current approach with platelet storage in a CLX HP container (Pall Medical, Covina, CA) and plasma, or a novel approach with an 18- to a 24-hour room temperature hold of the PRP and the manufacture of pooled platelets in a glucose-containing additive solution (AS) and storage in a new ELX container (Pall Medical). Standard in vitro assays were performed on days 2, 5, and 7. The results showed that the AS platelets in ELX have in vitro characteristics that are equivalent or superior to those of the standard product.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hiba Alhumaidan
- Blood Bank and Transfusion Medicine Research Unit, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI
| | - Tracey Cheves
- Blood Bank and Transfusion Medicine Research Unit, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI
| | - Stein Holme
- Blood Bank and Transfusion Medicine Research Unit, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI
| | - Joseph D. Sweeney
- Blood Bank and Transfusion Medicine Research Unit, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Bassuni WY, Blajchman MA, Al-Moshary MA. Why implement universal leukoreduction? Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther 2010; 1:106-23. [PMID: 20063539 DOI: 10.1016/s1658-3876(08)50042-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 49] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
The improvement of transfusion medicine technology is an ongoing process primarily directed at increasing the safety of allogeneic blood component transfusions for recipients. Over the years, relatively little attention had been paid to the leukocytes present in the various blood components. The availability of leukocyte removal (leukoreduction) techniques for blood components is associated with a considerable improvement in various clinical outcomes. These include a reduction in the frequency and severity of febrile transfusion reactions, reduced cytomegalovirus transfusion-transmission risk, the reduced incidence of alloimmune platelet refractoriness, a possible reduction in the risk of transfusion-associated variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease transmission, as well as reducing the overall risk of both recipient mortality and organ dysfunction, particularly in cardiac surgery patients and possibly in other categories of patients. Internationally, 19 countries have implemented universal leukocyte reduction (ULR) as part of their blood safety policy. The main reason for not implementing ULR in those countries that have not appears to be primarily concerns over costs. Nonetheless, the available international experience supports the concept that ULR is a process that results in improved safety of allogeneic blood components.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wafaa Y Bassuni
- Central Laboratory and Transfusion Services, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Wagner SJ, Skripchenko A, Myrup A, Awatefe H, Thompson-Montgomery D, Moroff G, Carmichael P, Lin L. Evaluation of in vitro storage properties of prestorage pooled whole blood-derived platelets suspended in 100 percent plasma and treated with amotosalen and long-wavelength ultraviolet light. Transfusion 2009; 49:704-10. [PMID: 19171001 DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.02040.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Amotosalen, a psoralen, has been utilized for photochemical treatment (PCT) of apheresis platelets (PLTs) and pooled buffy coat PLTs suspended in additive solution. In the United States, the source of many PLT transfusions is from whole blood-derived PLTs prepared by the PLT-rich plasma (PRP) method. This study investigated the in vitro PLT properties of amotosalen-PCT of leukoreduced pools of PLTs prepared by the PRP method and suspended in 100 percent plasma. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS On Day 1 of storage, 12 leukoreduced (n = 6) or 10 leukoreplete (n = 6) ABO-identical PLT concentrates were pooled, separated into two pools of 6 or 5 units, respectively, and leukoreduced (leukoreplete pools only). Each pool of 5 or 6 units was then photochemically treated (designated "test": amotosalen plus 3.0 J/cm(2) long-wavelength ultraviolet light followed by amotosalen/photoproduct removal) while the remaining identical pool (designated "control") was untreated. PLT in vitro assays were performed on test and control pools during 7-day storage. RESULTS PCT resulted in slightly reduced pH in test pools compared to that of matched control pools after 5 days of storage (5-unit pools: test, 6.96 +/- 0.12 vs. control, 7.15 +/- 0.09, p = 0.0033; 6-unit pools: test, 6.90 +/- 0.10 vs. control, 7.07 +/- 0.09, p < 0.0001). Test pools adequately maintained many other in vitro properties including PLT morphology, hypotonic shock response, and extent of shape change parameters during 5-day storage, which, like pH, also differed from those of controls. The pH of test and control pools declined on Day 7, with 1 of 6 test pools (either 5 or 6 units) having a pH value of less than 6.20, while all control pools had pH values of more than 6.66. CONCLUSION PCT of leukoreduced PLT pools of whole blood-derived PLTs in 100 percent plasma maintained adequate PLT in vitro variables through 5 days of storage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen J Wagner
- American Red Cross Biomedical Services, 15601 Crabbs Branch Way, Rockville, MD 20855, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Sweeney J, Kouttab N, Holme S, Kurtis J, Cheves T, Nelson E. Storage of platelet-rich plasma-derived platelet concentrate pools in plasma and additive solution. Transfusion 2006; 46:835-40. [PMID: 16686852 DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2006.00804.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prestorage pooling of platelet (PLT)-rich plasma (PRP)-derived PLT concentrates (PCs) and storage in either plasma (PS) or an additive solution (AS) is logistically feasible and would result in a product similar to buffy-coat or apheresis PLTs. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS On Day 0, PS PRP PCs were pooled with a sterile connecting device into a new 1.3-L storage container (ELX, PALL Medical). AS-PCs were prepared by addition of a new low-pH glucose-containing AS to the PLT sediment. AS-PCs were pooled into a 1.3-L ELX bag containing four tablets of NaHCO3. PC pools were sampled on Days 1, 5, and 7. RESULTS PS pools containing 5 units had a mean PLT yield similar to the AS pools (39 x 10(10) +/- 3 x 10(10) vs. 37 x 10(10) +/- 6 x 10(10); p = 0.25). All pools had WBC counts of less than 1 x 10(6). pH and HCO3 decreased in PS pools with storage, but either increased or remained constant in the AS pools. On Day 7, no differences were seen in morphology score or extent of shape change. Hypotonic shock response was better preserved in the plasma pools (71 +/- 12% vs. 56 +/- 13%, p < 0.01); however, surface P-selectin was expressed less in the AS pools (6 +/- 4% vs. 18 +/- 10%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION Manufacture and storage of PRP-PCs in pools either in plasma or in a glucose-containing AS in this new container are feasible, and there is good preservation of PLT quality to Day 7.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph Sweeney
- Herbert C. Lichtman Blood Bank and Transfusion Medicine Research Unit, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island 02906, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Dijkstra-Tiekstra MJ, van der Schoot CE, Pietersz RNI, Reesink HW. Answer to Dr Sweeney and Dr Holme. Vox Sang 2005. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1423-0410.2005.00681.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
|
10
|
Sweeney JD, Holme S. Platelet counts in pools of platelet-rich plasma-derived platelet concentrates. Vox Sang 2005; 89:168; author reply 169. [PMID: 16146509 DOI: 10.1111/j.1423-0410.2005.00679.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
|
11
|
Sweeney JD, Kouttab NM, Holme S, Kurtis JD, Cheves TA, Nelson EJ. Prestorage pooled whole-blood-derived leukoreduced platelets stored for seven days, preserve acceptable quality and do not show evidence of a mixed lymphocyte reaction. Transfusion 2004; 44:1212-9. [PMID: 15265126 DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2004.03438.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prestorage pooling of whole-blood-derived PCs (WBD-PCs) would be advantageous to transfusion services in that it would make the product available in a more timely manner, reduce wastage of untransfused pools, and simplify bacterial screening by allowing testing of the pool rather than each single PLT concentrate (PC). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Four to six individual leukoreduced PCs were pooled into a 1.5-L CLX-HP PLT storage bag using a sterile connecting device. Controls were individual prestorage leukoreduced PCs that were stored as single products. Products were sampled on Days 5 and 7 for measures of PLT quality; coagulation, fibrinolytic and complement activation; and for evidence of a mixed lymphocyte reaction. RESULTS The pH level was well maintained to Day 7 with no prestorage pool having a pH below 6.7. Day 7 studies showed no evidence of coagulation or difference in complement activation. F1.2 levels did not differ between Days 5 and 7, but a 10- to 15-percent increase in C3a des-Arg was observed between these days in all product types. Day 7 activated lymphocyte surface markers (CD69, CD71, HLA-DR) were all at lower limits of detection in the prestorage pooled products, and levels of supernatant cytokines were either not different between product types on either study day or, if different, were lower in the prestorage pooled products. CONCLUSION There is no evidence of a deterioration in quality, activation of coagulation or complement, or a mixed lymphocyte reaction attributable to the prestorage pooling process with up to 7 days of storage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph D Sweeney
- Herbert C. Lichtman Blood Bank and Research Unit, The Miriam Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island 02906, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Corash L. Confounding variables and co-interventions in the design of clinical trials: real life experience. Vox Sang 2002; 83 Suppl 1:261-6. [PMID: 12617149 DOI: 10.1111/j.1423-0410.2002.tb05314.x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
13
|
Cazenave JP, Davis K, Corash L. Design of clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of platelet transfusion: the euroSPRITE trial for components treated with Helinx technology. Semin Hematol 2001; 38:46-54. [PMID: 11727285 DOI: 10.1016/s0037-1963(01)90123-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
Methods of collection, preparation, and transfusion of platelet components have evolved markedly since the introduction of modern platelet transfusion therapy three decades ago. Despite these improvements, few randomized, prospective, controlled studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of these innovations on the outcome of platelet transfusion--prevention and treatment of bleeding due to thrombocytopenia. The majority of studies have used posttransfusion platelet count increments (CIs) as the primary outcome variable rather than bleeding assessments. In general, these studies have only examined average values for platelet CIs or adjusted ratio measures such as corrected count increment (CCI). Because platelet transfusions are given repeatedly over variable periods of time, this type of analysis has not provided information about the effects of multiple platelet transfusions or about specific product or patient-related covariates that may impact the outcome. Longitudinal regression analysis of platelet CIs offers the potential to provide more information than simple average values of ratio measures. The euroSPRITE trial, a European, multicenter, phase III study undertaken to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of platelets prepared with Helinx technology (Cerus Corp, Concord, CA), used longitudinal regression analysis to characterize more fully the response to platelet transfusions with products prepared with this new pathogen inactivation technology. In contrast to previous studies, the euroSPRITE study examined peritransfusion hemostasis and global indices of hemostasis to correlate the effect of platelet CI with prevention and treatment of bleeding during a period of platelet transfusion support.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J P Cazenave
- Etablissement Français du Sang, EFS-Alsace, Strasbourg, France
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Affiliation(s)
- J D Sweeney
- Department of Transfusion Medicine and Coagulation, Brown University School of Medicine, and Lifespan Academic Medical Center, Miriam Hospital, Providence, RI, USA
| |
Collapse
|