Bleeding due to thrombocytopenia in acute leukemias and reevaluation of the prophylactic platelet transfusion policy

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis on use of Thrombopoietic agents for chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia

Background

Currently, there are no approved options to prevent or treat chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT). We performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on use of thrombopoietic agents for CIT.

Patients and methods

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and health technology assessments from January 1995 to March 2021 for studies evaluating thrombopoietic agents for CIT, including recombinant human thrombopoietin (rhTPO), megakaryocyte growth and development factor (MGDF), romiplostim, and eltrombopag. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for efficacy and safety endpoints.

Results

We screened 1503 titles/abstracts, assessed 138 articles, and abstracted data from 39 publications (14 recombinant human thrombopoietin, 7 megakaryocyte growth and development factor, 9 romiplostim, 8 eltrombopag, and 1 romiplostim/eltrombopag). Random effects meta-analyses of data from multiple studies comparing thrombopoietic agents versus control (comparator, placebo, or no treatment) showed that thrombopoietic agents did not significantly improve chemotherapy dose delays and/or reductions (21.1% vs 40.4%, P = 0.364), grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (39.3% vs 34.8%; P = 0.789), platelet transfusions (16.7% vs 31.7%, P = 0.111), grade ≥ 2 bleeding (6.7% vs 16.5%; P = 0.250), or thrombosis (7.6% vs 12.5%; P = 0.131). However, among individual studies comparing thrombopoietic agents with placebo or no treatment, thrombopoietic agents positively improved outcomes in some studies, including significantly increasing mean peak platelet counts (186 x 10⁹/L with rhTPO vs 122 x 10⁹/L with no treatment; P < 0.05) in one study and significantly increasing platelet count at nadir (56 x 10⁹/L with rhTPO vs 28 x 10⁹/L with not treatment; P < 0.05) in another study. Safety findings included thrombosis (n = 23 studies) and bleeding (n = 11), with no evidence of increased thrombosis risk with thrombopoietic agents.

Conclusion

Our analyses generate the hypothesis that thrombopoietic agents may benefit patients with CIT. Further studies with well-characterized bleeding and platelet thresholds are warranted to explore the possible benefits of thrombopoietic agents for CIT.

Platelet Transfusions in Advanced Hematological Malignancies: A Position Paper

Treatment of patients with advanced-stage hematological malignancies (HM) includes frequent transfusions. Given present limited hospital budgets, administrative pressure is increasing on hematology services to limit the cost of these transfusions. An expert multidisciplinary panel involved in hematology formed a working party to draw up a series of proposals, including definitions of advanced stage disease and the indications for platelet transfusion. Their proposals included: (a) Platelet transfusions are indicated for the treatment of bleeding caused by low platelet counts; (b) Patients should receive full information, including the basic criteria for platelet transfusion; (c) Doctors should be trained to assess whether or not platelet transfusions are urgently required; and (d) The practice of home transfusions should be encouraged.

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.

Platelet and red blood cell utilization and transfusion independence in umbilical cord blood and allogeneic peripheral blood hematopoietic cell transplants

Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) recipients have substantial transfusion requirements. Factors associated with increased transfusions and the extent of blood product use in umbilical cord blood (UCB) recipients are uncertain. We reviewed blood product use in 229 consecutive adult recipients of allogeneic HCT at the University of Minnesota: 147 with leukemia, 82 lymphoma or myeloma; 58% received unrelated UCB and 43% sibling donor peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) grafts. Although neutrophil recovery was prompt (UCB median 17, range: 2-45 days, and PBSC 14, range: 3-34 days), only 135 of 229 (59% cumulative incidence) achieved red blood cell (RBC) independence and 157 (69%) achieved platelet independence by 6 months. Time to platelet independence was prolonged in UCB recipients (median UCB 41 versus PBSC 14 days) and in patients who had received a prior transplant (median 48 versus 32 days). Patients who received UCB grafts required more RBC through day 60 post-HCT (mean UCB 7.8 (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.7-8.9) versus PBSC 5.2 (3.7-6.7) transfusions, P = .04), and more platelet transfusions (mean 25.2 (95% CI 22.1-28.2) versus 12.9 (9.4-16.4), P < .01) compared to PBSC recipients. Patients receiving myeloablative (MA) conditioning required more RBC and platelet transfusions during the first 2 months post-HCT compared to reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) (7.4 versus 6.2, P = .30 for RBC; 23.2 versus 17.5, P = .07 for platelets). Despite prompt neutrophil engraftment, UCB recipients had delayed platelet recovery as well as more prolonged and costly blood product requirements. Enhanced approaches to accelerate multilineage engraftment could limit the transfusion-associated morbidity and costs accompanying UCB allotransplantation.

Prevention and treatment of uterine bleeding in hematologic malignancy

The purpose of this study was to provide a systematic review on prevention and treatment of uterine bleeding in the setting of hematologic malignancy. We performed MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane searches with the terms uterine bleeding, uterine hemorrhage, hematologic malignancy. All identified literature sources were included in the review. The identified literature is largely comprised of case series and pilot studies. No evidence-based protocols for gynecologists and hematologists are available. The majority of the identified literature centers on menstrual suppression with GnRH agonists in hematologic malignancy, although no randomized trials could be identified. Review of the identified literature suggests that medical prevention with GnRH agonist therapy is highly effective for prevention of uterine bleeding in hematologic malignancy. With respect to treatment of acute uterine bleeding in the setting of hematologic malignancy, medical therapy can be used and is successful in the majority of patients, according to the identified studies. Surgical treatment should be used expeditiously if medical treatment options fail to control acute bleeding. Empiric prevention and treatment algorithms for the discussed clinical settings are proposed. More research is necessary on the topic, with the goal to develop evidence-based guidelines for gynecology and hematology-oncology care providers. Close cooperation between the specialties may improve morbidity and mortality associated with uterine bleeding in hematological malignancy in the future.

Platelet utilization and the transfusion trigger: a prospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Prophylactic platelet (PLT) transfusion practices have become more conservative as studies support a threshold for transfusions at 10 x 10(9) per L. This change in practice may reduce our use of PLT transfusions.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Data were prospectively collected to assess the impact at one academic hospital when the transition from a 20 x 10(9) to a 10 x 10(9) per L threshold prophylactic transfusion was made.

RESULTS

A total of 503 patients received 7401 PLT transfusions. Seventy-four percent of the transfusions were prophylactic. During the first phase of the study, only 53 percent of transfusions were given at a pretransfusion PLT count of less than 20 x 10(9) per L and 20 percent less than 10 x 10(9) per L. In the second phase of the study when the transfusion trigger was 10 x 10(9) per L, 28 percent of transfusions were given at this level.

CONCLUSION

Many prophylactic PLT transfusions were given at PLT counts higher than the recommended trigger. Although the new transfusion guidelines altered transfusion practice, only a minor change in overall PLT usage was observed. Other changes in transfusion practices, such as dose per transfusion or sampling interval, will be required before significant reduction in the costs and hazards of prophylactic PLT transfusions can be realized.

Background, rationale, and design of a clinical trial to assess the effects of platelet dose on bleeding risk in thrombocytopenic patients

Outlined is the background and rationale for the initiation of a randomized prospective platelet transfusion trial to evaluate the effects of platelet dose on hemostasis and platelet utilization rates. This clinical trial is being performed by the newly established Transfusion Medicine/Hemostasis Clinical Trial Network supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. The trial will randomize 1,350 patients into three platelet transfusion arms based on body surface area (BSA). The lower dose will be 1.1 x 10(11) platelets/m(2), the medium dose will be 2.2 x 10(11) platelets/m(2), and the higher dose will be 4.4 x 10(11) platelets/m(2). The primary outcome measure will be the incidence of Grade 2 bleeding; i.e., gross hemorrhage without the need for red cell transfusion. Major secondary outcome measures will be the total number of platelets transfused, the total number of platelet transfusion events, the highest grade of bleeding, and bleeding severity. It is expected that this clinical trial will change platelet transfusion practice by identifying whether low-dose platelet transfusion therapy provides adequate hemostasis and what is the most cost-effective strategy for providing platelet transfusions.

Management of bleeding in patients with advanced cancer

Bleeding occurs in up to 10% of patients with advanced cancer. It can present in many different ways. This article provides a qualitative review of treatment options available to manage visible bleeding. Local modalities, such as hemostatic agents and dressings, radiotherapy, endoscopic ligation and coagulation, and transcutaneous arterial embolization, are reviewed in the context of advanced cancer, as are systemic treatments such as vitamin K, vasopressin/desmopressin, octreotide/somatostatin, antifibrinolytic agents (tranexamic acid and aminocaproic acid), and blood products. Considerations at the end of life are described.

Prophylactic platelet transfusion for haemorrhage 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 30 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the optimal use of platelet transfusion for the prevention of haemorrhage (prophylactic platelet transfusion) in patients with haematological malignancies undergoing chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were searched for in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Searching was also undertaken on the OVID versions of MEDLINE and EMBASE using an RCT search filter strategy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given prophylactically to prevent bleeding in patients with haematological malignancies and receiving treatment with chemotherapy and/or stem cell transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All electronically derived citations and abstracts of papers identified by the review search strategy were initially screened for relevancy by one reviewer. Studies clearly irrelevant were excluded at this stage. The full text of all potentially relevant trials was then formally assessed for eligibility by two reviewers independently. Two reviewers completed data extraction independently. Missing data were requested from the original investigators, as appropriate. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with the other reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight completed published trials, with a total of 390 participants in the intervention groups and 362 participants in the control groups, were included in the review for further analysis. The eight studies were classified as: * three trials relevant to prophylactic platelet transfusions versus therapeutic platelet transfusions; * three trials relevant to prophylactic platelet transfusion with one trigger level versus prophylactic platelet transfusion with another trigger level; * two trials relevant to prophylactic platelet transfusion with one dose schedule versus prophylactic platelet transfusion with another dose schedule. The few reports of controlled trials addressing prophylactic versus therapeutic transfusions contained small numbers of patients and were all undertaken over 25 years ago. None of these three studies explicitly clarified whether the lack of a reported difference was a reflection of insufficient power in the trials. The findings of the meta-analyses for this group of three small studies must be interpreted with caution. In contrast, more contemporary trials addressed the question of what platelet count thresholds should apply for prophylactic transfusion; three identified studies broadly compared platelet transfusion thresholds of 10 versus 20 x 109/litre for different clinical groups of patients. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regards to mortality, remission rates, number of participants with severe bleeding events or red cell transfusion requirements. However, it was unclear whether the studies had sufficient power to demonstrate in combination non-inferiority in terms of safety of the lower threshold, 10 x 109/litre. Insufficient randomised trials have been undertaken to make clinically relevant conclusions about the effect of different platelet doses.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no reasons to change current practice but uncertainty about the practice of prophylactic transfusion therapy should be recognised, particularly in the light of concerns about the scenario that blood products, including platelets, could become an increasingly scarce resource in the future and for which adequate alternatives do not exist. Consideration should be given to developing adequately powered trials comparing strategies of prophylaxis versus therapeutic platelet transfusion.

Near-fatal uterine hemorrhage during induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia: a case report of bilateral uterine artery embolization

Severe transfusion-dependent uterine hemorrhage is a relatively uncommon complication of induction chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Even less common is the failure of systemic conjugated estrogens in this setting. We report a case of life-threatening uterine hemorrhage in a 38-year-old woman in the setting of transfusion-refractory thrombocytopenia after completing induction chemotherapy for AML. She experienced dramatic breakthrough uterine hemorrhage despite multiple platelet transfusions, conjugated estrogens, recombinant factor VIIa, epsilon-aminocaproic acid, and intracavitary thrombin-soaked gauze tamponade. At the point of near-exsanguination in the setting of hypotension, hematocrit of 14%, and a platelet count of 3,000/microL, she underwent bilateral uterine artery embolization which proved immediately successful. We review the literature and indications for this procedure in the oncologic patient care setting.

Optimizing platelet transfusion therapy

Platelet transfusions are widely used. Prophylactic transfusions are employed in severely thrombocytopenic patients without evidence of bleeding, but no randomized trial data prove the safety or efficacy of this approach. Randomized trials have demonstrated the equivalence of transfusion triggers of 10,000 and 20,000/microl for prophylactic transfusions. The former threshold is potentially safer for the patient, conservative of donor resources and leads to lower costs, with perhaps a slightly greater risk of minor hemorrhage. Randomized trials have demonstrated the equivalence of pheresis or whole blood-derived platelet transfusions. The former present a lower risk for infectious agents, and the latter are less expensive and a more efficient use of limited donor resources. Randomized trials prove that leukoreduced and ABO identical platelet transfusions reduce the risks of HLA alloimmunization and platelet transfusion refractoriness (both leukoreduction and ABO matching), transfusion reactions (leukoreduction) and CMV transmission (leukoreduction). Leukoreduction and ABO matching of platelet transfusions also have been associated in preliminary observational studies with reduced morbidity and mortality in surgical patients and reduced infections in patients with leukemia. These results require further investigation. Future challenges include (1) determining the best approach to bacterial contamination of platelets, whether by detection methods or pathogen inactivation and (2) determining the threshold for prophylactic platelet transfusions in thrombocytopenic patients undergoing surgery or invasive procedures.

Triggers for prophylactic use of platelet transfusions and optimal platelet dosing in thrombocytopenic dogs and cats

Prophylactic platelet transfusions are frequently given to human patients with hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia. For several decades, the most common transfusion trigger was 20,000/microL, but the trend is now to use 10,000/microL in the absence of other risk factors for bleeding. This trigger seems to reduce the number of transfusions without increasing the risk of severe bleeding. Most studies involved in establishing platelet transfusion policies have involved patients with acute leukemia, with fewer studies involving patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or aggressive chemotherapy for other cancers and patients with aplastic anemia. In the presence of other risk factors for spontaneous bleeding, 20,000/microL is still considered an appropriate trigger. The trigger for prophylactic transfusion before surgery has not undergone the same recent scrutiny as has the trigger for spontaneous bleeding. The recommendation remains to raise the platelet count to 50,000 to 100,000/microL if possible, although it is recognized that surgery and other invasive procedures have been performed at lower platelet counts without major bleeding. Prophylactic transfusion is not used in disorders of platelet consumption and destruction to prevent spontaneous bleeding but is used before surgery. Because of the comparative lack of experience with platelet transfusion in veterinary medicine, it is difficult to make generalizations for dogs and cats. Using the guidelines established for therapeutic and prophylactic transfusion of human patients is a reasonable starting point, however. A therapeutic transfusion policy is suggested in the veterinary setting provided that the patient can be closely observed for critical bleeding and a prompt transfusion can be given. This policy should ultimately reduce the overall number of platelet transfusions given to hospital patients. If an animal cannot be closely observed or the ability to transfuse on demand is limited, prophylactic transfusion is recommended. The triggers for initiating a platelet transfusion in dogs are extrapolated from human data; these values are lower by 50% for cats. Because of the imprecision of platelet counting at low values, platelet counts must always be interpreted in conjunction with clinical signs of hemorrhage. If platelet-rich plasma or platelet concentrate is available, a dose of 1 platelet unit per 10 kg is recommended, although resources may dictate a smaller dose. This will raise the recipient platelet count by a maximum of about 40,000/microL. Assuming a trigger of 10,000/microL, a transfusion will probably be required approximately every 3 days. It must be remembered that the frequency of platelet transfusions may be greater in the presence of factors accelerating platelet loss or destruction. If fresh whole blood is used, a rule of thumb is to transfuse 10 mL/kg, which will raise the recipient platelet count by a maximum of approximately 10,000/microL. Daily transfusions or transfusions every other day will probably be required.

What is the proper threshold for platelet transfusion in patients with chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia?

Platelet transfusion therapy is an integral part of modern oncological practice and is used to treat hemorrhage associated with thrombocytopenia. More commonly, platelets are transfused to prevent hemorrhage in thrombocytopenic patients. Conventional wisdom has suggested a threshold for prophylactic transfusion of <20x10(9)/l. Many studies now support the safety of more conservative transfusion regimes that reduce patient exposure to donors and conserve precious resources, without an increase in risk of hemorrhage. This review presents the data to support the use of a prophylactic transfusion threshold of <10x10(9)/l in patients without risk factors for hemorrhage and who have ready access to emergent medical care.

Acute bleeding complications in patients after bone marrow transplantation

Acute bleeding is a frequent complication that commonly associates with increased morbidity after bone marrow transplantation. Except for diffuse alveolar hemorrhage and cerebral hemorrhage, bleeding is infrequently recorded as a direct cause of death. Yet outcome analyses showed that bleeding from any reviewed site was associated with reduced survival. Reduced survival was correlated with bleeding intensity and the number of bleeding sites. These data point to the need to monitor all manifestations of bleeding, as bleeding may identify patients at risk for bone marrow transplantation toxicity. Until recently, prophylactic platelet transfusions were commonly given at a trigger of 20 x 10(9)/L. Whereas bleeding is more likely to occur when platelet counts drop to low levels, most bleeding episodes were recorded with platelet counts greater than 20 x 10(9)/L, suggesting causes other than profound thrombocytopenia in the pathogenesis of bleeding. Given that a trigger of 10 x 10(9)/L has become accepted for prophylactic platelet transfusions, care should be taken to ensure that parameters other than the incidence of bleeding have not been adversely affected.

Rehabilitation following bone marrow transplantation

Bone marrow transplantation and stem cell transplantation are increasingly used to treat hematologic malignancies and some solid tumors. The treatment entails bone marrow-ablative therapies and intensive medical support to sustain the patient through pancytopenia and other complications of the disease, transplantation process, or drug side effects. Patients who develop graft-versus-host disease are the most difficult subset of transplant recipients to manage. Most transplant recipients perform at normal or near-normal functional levels at the inception of the transplantation process but are at high risk for developing functional deficits as a result of cumulative impairments. These impairments arise from their disease, their prior cancer treatment, transplant induction, graft-versus-host disease, immobility, infection, steroid-related side effects, and other sequelae of transplantation. Preventive and preemptive rehabilitation interventions can minimize functional loss and facilitate recovery, but the transplantation team must be sensitive to and regularly assess for early functional declines in these patients. The physiatrist and the other members of the rehabilitation team must be thoroughly acquainted with the unique needs and challenges of the bone marrow transplantation population in order to design and modify treatment programs effectively and safely. Outcome research has shown that some patients have continued limitations in function despite successful transplantation. Few evidence-based data are available that addresses factors correlating with poor functional outcomes other than graft-versus-host disease. However, this disease has not been investigated utilizing objective functional instruments. Future research should more clearly elucidate the functional impact of allogeneic and autologous transplants by using standardized physical performance measures as well as thorough function-based symptomatology questionnaires.

Lowering the prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold: a prospective analysis

The 20 x 10(9) /L threshold for prophylactic platelet transfusion may be unnecessarily high. Few prospective studies, however, in which other trigger values were tested have been published. In this study all hospitalized, thrombocytopenic adult hematology-oncology patients in our institution were prospectively evaluated daily for hemorrhage and platelet transfusion during a one year period; no patients were excluded for bleeding or infectious problems. By design, during the initial six-months (baseline period), the prophylactic platelet transfusion trigger was 20 x 10(9) /L; for the second six-months (study period) this threshold was changed to 10 x 10(9) /L. Patients studied during the two periods did not differ significantly in age, gender, diagnosis, blood or marrow transplant status, and duration of neutropenia. Compliance with the thresholds was 95.6% (baseline period) and 93.5% (study period). For patients with platelet counts under 20 x 10(9) /L, the mean use of platelet transfusions per patient per day was significantly lower in the study period (4.47) than in the baseline period (6.48; p<0.001). Both mean prophylactic (1.54/patient-day) and therapeutic (2.93/patient-day) platelet transfusions were reduced in the study period compared with the baseline period (2.26 and 4.22/patient-day, respectively). Hemorrhage was slightly reduced in the study period compared with the baseline period: major hemorrhage, 15.2% vs. 18.4% (p=0.014); minor hemorrhage, 63.6% vs. 70.1% (p<0.001). Thus, hemorrhage was not increased with the lower trigger level. A 10 x 10(9) /L prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold value is safe and effective.

Acute bleeding and thrombocytopenia after bone marrow transplantation

The relationship between hemorrhage and low platelet count was first established in patients with acute leukemia, and has been widely applied to thrombocytopenic patients, including BMT patients. Yet, the role of thrombocytopenia in bleeding post BMT has not been systematically studied. We evaluated the risk of bleeding and outcome associated with thrombocytopenia in BMT patients who had prophylactic platelet transfusions at a trigger of 20 x 10(9)/l. Thrombocytopenia was investigated in 321 patients with moderate or severe bleeding (BLD), and in a matched comparison group of 287 patients who did not bleed (NBLD). Profound thrombocytopenia (< or = 10 x 10(9)/l) was found in 8.6% of the BLD patients during the week before the bleeding onset, significantly more frequent than in NBLD patients (2.1% to 4%, P < 0.02), during weeks 2 to 6 post BMT (the period when 75% of the bleeding initiated). On the first day of bleeding, platelet counts < or = 10 x 10(9)/l were found in 13.5%, 11-20 x 10(9)/l in 20.4%, and > 20 x 10(9)/l in 66.1% of all episodes. Overall survival in BLD patients was not associated with the severity of thrombocytopenia before bleeding onset. Severity of thrombocytopenia was significantly associated with reduced survival in NBLD patients. We concluded that bleeding post BMT was significantly associated with thrombocytopenia, but the attributable risk of bleeding from profound thrombocytopenia was not large. Thrombocytopenia may be an important clinical sign in NBLD patients, and should be further explored in relation to acute toxicities other than bleeding.

Optimal dosing and triggers for prophylactic use of platelet transfusions

Despite the reliance on platelet transfusion support in patients receiving myeloablative therapy, controversies surround platelet transfusion practices. These include the appropriate platelet dose and the threshold at which prophylactic platelet transfusions will be most effective. These issues bear directly on patient outcome (donor exposure and bleeding complications), cost effectiveness of transfusion, and maintenance of adequate platelet inventories. This review examines the recent studies that have taken on the task of resolving these questions in order to provide optimal platelet transfusion guidelines. Studies now have convincingly demonstrated that a 10,000/microL threshold for prophylactic platelet transfusion is safe and effective in uncomplicated thrombocytopenic patients. Although platelet dosages vary, in general, smaller doses are both effective and inventory-sparing in the more complicated inpatient setting, while larger platelet doses allow for an increased transfusion interval for chronic outpatient support.

Safety and Cost Effectiveness of a 10 × 109/L Trigger for Prophylactic Platelet Transfusions Compared With the Traditional 20 × 109/L Trigger: A Prospective Comparative Trial in 105 Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia

In 105 consecutive patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia (French-American-British M3 excluded), we compared prospectively the risk of bleeding complications, the number of platelet and red blood cell transfusions administered, and the costs of transfusions using two different prophylactic platelet transfusion protocols. Two hundred sixteen cycles of induction or consolidation chemotherapy and 3,843 days of thrombocytopenia less than 25 × 109/L were evaluated. At the start of the study, each of the 17 participating centers decided whether they would use a 10 × 109/L prophylactic platelet transfusion trigger (group A/8 centers) or a 20 × 109/L trigger (group B/9 centers). Bleeding complications (World Health Organization grade 2-4) during treatment cycles were comparable in the two groups: 20 of 110 (18%) in group A and 18 of 106 (17%) in group B (P = .8). Serious bleeding events (grade 3-4) were generally not related to the patient's platelet count but were the consequence of local lesions and plasma coagulation factor deficiencies due to sepsis. Eighty-six percent of the serious bleeding episodes occurred during induction chemotherapy. No patient died of a bleeding complication. There were no significant differences in the number of red blood cell transfusions administered between the two groups, but there were significant differences in the number of platelet transfusions administered per treatment cycle: pooled random donor platelet concentrates averaged 15.4 versus 25.4 (P < .01) and apheresis platelets averaged 3.0 versus 4.8 (P < .05) for group A versus group B, respectively. This resulted in the cost of platelet therapy being one third lower in group A compared with group B without any associated increase in bleeding risk.

Safety and Cost Effectiveness of a 10 × 109/L Trigger for Prophylactic Platelet Transfusions Compared With the Traditional 20 × 109/L Trigger: A Prospective Comparative Trial in 105 Patients With Acute Myeloid Leukemia

In 105 consecutive patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia (French-American-British M3 excluded), we compared prospectively the risk of bleeding complications, the number of platelet and red blood cell transfusions administered, and the costs of transfusions using two different prophylactic platelet transfusion protocols. Two hundred sixteen cycles of induction or consolidation chemotherapy and 3,843 days of thrombocytopenia less than 25 × 109/L were evaluated. At the start of the study, each of the 17 participating centers decided whether they would use a 10 × 109/L prophylactic platelet transfusion trigger (group A/8 centers) or a 20 × 109/L trigger (group B/9 centers). Bleeding complications (World Health Organization grade 2-4) during treatment cycles were comparable in the two groups: 20 of 110 (18%) in group A and 18 of 106 (17%) in group B (P = .8). Serious bleeding events (grade 3-4) were generally not related to the patient's platelet count but were the consequence of local lesions and plasma coagulation factor deficiencies due to sepsis. Eighty-six percent of the serious bleeding episodes occurred during induction chemotherapy. No patient died of a bleeding complication. There were no significant differences in the number of red blood cell transfusions administered between the two groups, but there were significant differences in the number of platelet transfusions administered per treatment cycle: pooled random donor platelet concentrates averaged 15.4 versus 25.4 (P < .01) and apheresis platelets averaged 3.0 versus 4.8 (P < .05) for group A versus group B, respectively. This resulted in the cost of platelet therapy being one third lower in group A compared with group B without any associated increase in bleeding risk.

Reliability of automated platelet counts: comparison with manual method and utility for prediction of clinical bleeding

The 20 x 10(9)/L (20,000/microliters) threshold for prophylactic platelet transfusion may be unnecessarily high. The widespread use of this threshold may reflect lack of confidence in the reliability of low platelet counts. We evaluated the performance of automated platelet counts and their relation to clinical bleeding. First, we prepared serial blood dilutions with "target" platelet counts from 2 to 40 x 10(9)/L. For the 48 measurements on 2 x 10(9)/L "target" dilutions, values of 1 or 2 x 10(9)/L were obtained with the Sysmex NE-8000 analyzer (mean 1.44 x 10(9)/L; SD 0.31 x 10(9)/L). Similarly, for 5 x 10(9)/L "target" counts, automated counts were 3-6 x 10(9)/L (mean 4.42 x 10(9)/L; SD 0.18 x 10(9)/L). Similar results were observed with all other "target" levels, with coefficients of variation (CV) from 6.39% to 7.71% with 10-40 x 10(9)/L "target" values. Secondly, we compared triplicate automated and manual platelet counts on thrombocytopenic patients with platelet counts from 4-30 x 10(9)/L. The triplicate automated platelet counts differed by no more than 5 x 10(9)/L among themselves, whereas the manual counts varied by as much as 30 x 10(9)/L. Mean platelet counts: automated, 14.40 x 10(9)/L (CV 10.12%); manual, 16.48 x 10(9)/L (CV 30.39%) (P = 0.038 for counts; P < 0.001 for CV). Finally, we prospectively evaluated bleeding in thrombocytopenic patients (1,809 patient-days of observation). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed highly significant correlations between the automated platelet count and major and minor bleeding manifestations. Thus, automated platelet counts are highly reliable and accurately predict clinical bleeding. The use of automated analyzers should facilitate improved prophylactic platelet transfusion protocols.

A randomized, controlled trial of platelet transfusions in thrombocytopenic premature infants

A multicenter prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted to determine whether early use of platelet concentrates would reduce the incidence or extension of intracranial hemorrhage or both in sick preterm infants with thrombocytopenia. The effects on bleeding as reflected by the amount of blood product support administered and a shortened bleeding time were assessed as secondary outcomes. Premature infants with a platelet count < 150 x 10(9)/L within the first 72 hours of life were randomly assigned to receive either conventional therapy or conventional therapy plus platelet concentrates (10 ml/kg). The platelet count was maintained < 150 x 10(9)/L until day 7 of life by one to three platelet transfusions. In 22 (28%) of the 78 treated infants and 19 (26%) of the 74 control infants, either a new intracranial hemorrhage developed or an already-present one became more extensive (p = 0.73). Similar numbers of infants had each grade of intracranial hemorrhage on both initial and follow-up ultrasonography. Similar numbers of infants received fresh frozen plasma and packed red blood cells, but treated infants received less of both. The bleeding time was prolonged in the treated group before the infusion of platelet concentrates but subsequently shortened (mean difference, 79.0; 95% confidence interval, 73.1 to 84.9). Subanalysis of the control group showed that infants with platelet counts < 60 x 10(9)/L (n = 21) on at least one occasion received more fresh frozen plasma and packed red blood cells than did those with platelet counts > 60 x 10(9)/L.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Safety of stringent prophylactic platelet transfusion policy for patients with acute leukaemia

Early studies suggested that the risk of haemorrhagic complications become unacceptable when platelet counts drop below 20 x 10(9)/l. Because there are insufficient data to define 20 x 10(9)/l as the threshold for prophylactic platelet transfusions, the practicability of a more restrictive transfusion policy has been assessed prospectively in 102 consecutive patients being treated for acute leukaemia. Besides platelet count, the transfusion protocol took into consideration factors such as presence of bleeding, fever, coagulation disorders, and intention to do therapeutic procedures. 31 major bleeding episodes occurred on 1.9% of the study days when platelet counts were 10 x 10(9)/l or less and on 0.07% of study days when counts were 10-20 x 10(9)/l. The findings indicate that the threshold for prophylactic transfusions can safely be set at 5 x 10(9)/l in patients without fever or bleeding manifestations and at 10 x 10(9)/l in patients with such signs. For patients with coagulation disorders or anatomical lesions, or for those on heparin, the threshold should be at least 20 x 10(9)/l. Such a restrictive platelet transfusion policy, which is applicable not only to thrombocytopenia associated with acute leukaemia but also to other forms of hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia, reduces exposure of such patients to blood donors and results in substantial health-care savings.

Transfusion and the use of blood products

I have reviewed areas of development in the use of blood and blood products, placing emphasis on the complications of transfusion, particularly transmission of infection. Alloimmunization in relation to transfusion of red cells and platelets has been covered and suggestions for reducing this problem assessed. The potential methods of avoiding the infective complications have been discussed including the screening of blood for infective agents, the virucidal treatment of blood products during the manufacturing process and white cell depletion. The use of recombinant DNA technology to produce coagulation factors offers the possibility of further reducing infective risks. An area of clinical promise is the use of haematopoietic growth factors to treat bone marrow failure, either congenital or acquired, such as the myelosuppressive effects of cancer chemotherapy, and reduce reliance on blood products. The aim of the chapter is to encourage the rational use of a limited resource by considering the risks inherent in transfusion and alternative strategies. In doing this it is important to audit current and future practice, and it is suggested that reference is made to the suggestions of Hume (1989) for quality assessment and assurance in paediatric transfusion medicine.

ESPRE: a knowledge-based system to support platelet transfusion decisions

ESPRE is a knowledge-based system which aids in the review of requests for platelet transfusions in the hospital blood bank. It is a microcomputer-based decision support system written in LISP and utilizes a hybrid frame and rule architecture. By automatically obtaining most of the required patient data directly from the hospital's main laboratory computers via a direct link, very little keyboard entry is required. Assessment of time trends computed from the data constitutes an important aspect of this system. To aid the blood bank personnel in deciding on the appropriateness of the requested transfusion, the system provides an explanatory report which includes a list of patient-specific data, a list of the conditions for which a transfusion would be appropriate for the particular patient (given the clinical condition), and the conclusions drawn by the system. In an early clinical evaluation of ESPRE, out of a random sample of 75 platelet transfusion requests, there were only three disagreements between ESPRE and blood bank personnel.