Impact of product platelet count reduction on platelet demand in Canada

Expanding the platelet inventory to mitigate the impact of severe shortages

The platelet collection and distribution system, based on volunteer nonremunerated donors, apheresis platelet collections, and primarily 1-directional distribution of platelets for up to 5-day room temperature storage at hospitals, typically performs well and provides therapeutic support for hundreds of thousands of patients annually. However, direct and indirect effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, particularly during the Omicron wave, produced dramatic systemic failures and severe shortages. We propose 4 initiatives to reinforce the existing platelet pipeline and buffer the platelet supply against future unexpected disruptions.

Transfusion outcomes between regular and low yield pathogen reduced platelets across different patient populations in a single institution

BACKGROUND

Pathogen reduction technology (PRT) effectively mitigates bacterial contamination in platelets but is more likely to produce low yield units. Although low dose transfusion using conventional platelets has not been associated with increased bleeding, these findings have not been reproduced with PRT-treated platelets.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Platelet transfusions in a tertiary adult hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Comparisons were made between PRT-treated regular (PRT-PR) and low (PRT-PL) yield platelets. Outcomes examined included the number of platelets and RBCs transfused, transfusion-free interval, and corrected count increment (CCI). Subgroup analyses were also performed on hematology-oncology inpatients and outpatients, as well as non-hematology-oncology patients.

RESULTS

Platelet utilization per patient remained mostly unchanged (mean 2.9-4.3 units per patient per month) even when the frequency of PRT-PL transfusion increased. Among 1402 patients examined, the number of platelets and RBCs transfused was not significantly different between patients first transfused with PRT-PR versus PRT-PL (mean number of platelet units = 2.8 vs. 3.1, p = 0.38; mean number of RBC units = 4.8 vs. 4.3, p = 0.93). Among 10,257 platelet transfusions examined, the transfusion-free interval (hazard ratio = 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.10) and CCI (10.2 vs. 11.0, p = 0.70) were comparable between PRT-PR and PRT-PL units. Similar findings were observed in all subgroups, except for shortened transfusion-free intervals among hematology-oncology inpatients.

CONCLUSION

PRT-PR and PRT-PL units may be used in an equivalent manner to maintain an adequate platelet inventory, since there was only a minor difference in time between transfusions.