Abstract

BACKGROUND Plasma is frequently administered to patients with prolonged INR prior to invasive procedures. However, there is limited evidence evaluating efficacy and safety. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS We performed a pilot trial in hospitalized patients with INR between 1.5 and 2.5 undergoing procedures conducted outside the operating room. We excluded patients undergoing procedures proximal to the central nervous system, platelet counts <40,000/μl, or congenital or acquired coagulation disorders unresponsive to plasma. We randomly allocated patients stratified by hospital and history of cirrhosis to receive plasma transfusion (10-15 cc/kg) or no transfusion. The primary outcome was change in hemoglobin concentration within 2 days of procedure. RESULTS We enrolled 57 patients, mean age 56.0, 34 (59.6%) with cirrhosis, and mean INR 1.92 (SD = 0.27). In the intention to treat analysis, there were 10 of 27 (38.5%) participants in the plasma arm with a post procedure INR <1.5 and one of 30 (3.6%) in the no treatment arm (p < .01). The mean INR after receiving plasma transfusion was -0.24 (SD 0.26) lower than baseline. The change from pre-procedure hemoglobin level to lowest level within 2 days was -0.6 (SD = 1.0) in the plasma transfusion arm and -0.4 (SD = 0.6) in the no transfusion arm (p = .29). Adverse outcomes were uncommon. DISCUSSION We found no differences in change in hemoglobin concentration in those treated with plasma compared to no treatment. The change in INR was small and corrected to less than 1.5 in minority of patients. Large trials are required to establish if plasma is safe and efficacious.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Optimal management for trauma-induced coagulopathy (TIC) is a clinical conundrum. In conjunction with the transfusion of fresh-frozen plasma (FFP), additional administration of prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) was proposed to bring about further coagulative benefit. However, investigations evaluating the efficacy as well as corresponding side effects were scarce and inconsistent. The aim of this study was to systematically review current literature and to perform a meta-analysis comparing FFP+PCC with FFP alone. METHODS Web search followed by manual interrogation was performed to identify relevant literatures fulfilling the following criteria, subjects as TIC patients taking no baseline anticoagulants, without underlying coagulative disorders, and reported clinical consequences. Those comparing FFP alone with PCC alone were excluded. Comprehensive Meta-analysis software was utilized, and statistical results were delineated with odd ratio (OR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI). I(2) was calculated to determine heterogeneity. The primary endpoint was set as all-cause mortality, while the secondary endpoint consisted of international normalized ratio (INR) correction, transfusion of blood product, and thrombosis rate. RESULTS One hundred and sixty-four articles were included for preliminary evaluation, 3 of which were qualified for meta-analysis. A total of 840 subjects were pooled for assessment. Minimal heterogeneity was present in the comparisons (I(2) < 25%). In the PCC + FFP cohort, reduced mortality rate was observed (OR: 0.631; 95% CI: 0.450-0.884, p = 0.007) after pooling. Meanwhile, INR correction time was shorter under PCC + FFP (MD: -608.300 mins, p < 0.001), whilst the rate showed no difference (p = 0.230). The PCC + FFP group is less likely to mandate transfusion of packed red blood cells (p < 0.001) and plasma (p < 0.001), but not platelet (p = 0.615). The incidence of deep vein thrombosis was comparable in the two groups (p = 0.460). CONCLUSIONS Compared with FFP only, PCC + FFP demonstrated better survival rate, favorable clinical recovery and no elevation of thromboembolism events after TIC.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Prehospital plasma improves survival for severely injured trauma patients transported by air ambulance. We sought to characterize the unexpected survivors, patients who survived despite having high predicted mortality following traumatic injury. METHODS The Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) trial randomized severely injured patients (n=501) to receive either standard care (crystalloid) or two units of prehospital plasma followed by standard care fluid resuscitation. We built a generalized linear model to estimate patient mortality. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to evaluate model performance. We defined unexpected survivors as patients who had a predicted mortality >50% and survived to 30 days. We characterized patient demographics, clinical features, and outcomes of the unexpected survivors. Observed to expected (O/E) ratios and Z-statistics were calculated using model-estimated mortality for each cohort. RESULTS Our model predicted mortality better than ISS or RTS parameters and identified 36 unexpected survivors. Compared to expected survivors, unexpected survivors were younger (33 [24, 52] vs. 47 [32, 59] years, P=0.013), were more severely injured (ISS 34 [22, 50] vs. 18 [10, 27], P<0.001), had worse organ dysfunction and hospital resource outcomes (MOF, ICU and hospital length of stay, and ventilator days), and were more likely to receive prehospital plasma (67 vs. 46%, P=0.031). Nonsurvivors with high predicted mortality were more likely to receive standard care resuscitation (P<0.001). Unexpected survivors who received prehospital plasma had a lower observed to expected mortality than those that received standard care resuscitation (O/E 0.56 [0.33-0.84] vs. 1.0 [0.73-1.32]). The number of prehospital plasma survivors (24) exceeded the number of predicted survivors (n=10) estimated by our model (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Prehospital plasma is associated with an increase in the number of unexpected survivors following severe traumatic injury. Prehospital interventions may improve the probability of survival for injured patients with high predicted mortality based on early injury characteristics, vital signs, and resuscitation measures.Secondary Analysis LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II.

Abstract

There is equipoise regarding the use of prothrombin complex concentrate vs. fresh frozen plasma in bleeding patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We performed a pilot randomised controlled trial to determine the recruitment rate for a large trial, comparing the impact of prothrombin complex concentrate vs. fresh frozen plasma on haemostasis (1 h and 24 h post-intervention), and assessing safety. Adult patients who developed bleeding within 24 h of cardiac surgery that required coagulation factor replacement were randomly allocated to receive prothrombin complex concentrate (15 IU.kg(-1) based on factor IX) or fresh frozen plasma (15 ml.kg(-1) ). If bleeding continued after the first administration of prothrombin complex concentrate or fresh frozen plasma administration, standard care was administered. From February 2019 to October 2019, 180 patients were screened, of which 134 (74.4% (95%CI 67-81%)) consented, 59 bled excessively and 50 were randomly allocated; 25 in each arm, recruitment rate 35% (95%CI 27-44%). There were 23 trial protocol deviations, 137 adverse events (75 prothrombin complex concentrate vs. 62 fresh frozen plasma) and 18 serious adverse events (5 prothrombin complex concentrate vs. 13 fresh frozen plasma). There was no increase in thromboembolic events with prothrombin complex concentrate. No patient withdrew from the study, four were lost to follow-up and two died. At 1 h after administration of the intervention there was a significant increase in fibrinogen, Factor V, Factor XII, Factor XIII, α(2) -antiplasmin and antithrombin levels in the fresh frozen plasma arm, while Factor II and Factor X were significantly higher in the prothrombin complex concentrate group. At 24 h, there were no significant differences in clotting factor levels. We conclude that recruitment to a larger study is feasible. Haemostatic tests have provided useful insight into the haemostatic changes following prothrombin complex concentrate or fresh frozen plasma administration. A definitive trial is needed to ascertain the benefits and safety for each.

Abstract

BACKGROUND Convalescent plasma administration may be of clinical benefit in patients with severe influenza, but reports on the efficacy of this therapy vary. METHODS We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving the administration of convalescent plasma to treat severe influenza. Healthcare databases were searched in February 2020. All records were screened against eligibility criteria, and the risks of bias were assessed. The primary outcome was the fatality rate. RESULTS A total of 2861 studies were retrieved and screened. Five eligible RCTs were identified. Pooled analyses yielded no evidence that using convalescent plasma to treat severe influenza resulted in significant reductions in mortality (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.51-2·23; P = 0.87; I(2) = 35%), number of days in the intensive care unit, or number of days on mechanical ventilation. This treatment may have the possible benefits of increasing hemagglutination inhibition titers and reducing influenza B viral loads and cytokine levels. No serious adverse events were reported. The included studies were generally of high quality with a low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS The administration of convalescent plasma appears safe but may not reduce the mortality, number of days in the intensive care unit, or number of days on mechanical ventilation in patients with severe influenza.

Abstract

Importance: Both military and civilian clinical practice guidelines include early plasma transfusion to achieve a plasma to red cell ratio approaching 1:1 to 1:2. However, it was not known how early plasma should be given for optimal benefit. Two recent randomized clinical trials were published, with apparently contradictory results. The Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) clinical trial showed a nearly 30% reduction in mortality with plasma transfusion in the prehospital environment, while the Control of Major Bleeding After Trauma (COMBAT) clinical trial showed no survival improvement. Objective: To facilitate a post hoc combined analysis of the COMBAT and PAMPer trials to examine questions that could not be answered by either clinical trial alone. We hypothesized that prehospital transport time influenced the effects of prehospital plasma on 28-day mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 626 patients in the 2 clinical trials were included. Patients with trauma and hemorrhagic shock were randomly assigned to receive either standard care or 2 U of thawed plasma followed by standard care in the prehospital environment. Data analysis was performed between September 2018 and January 2019. Interventions: Prehospital transfusion of 2 U of plasma compared with crystalloid-based resuscitation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was 28-day mortality. Results: In this post hoc analysis of 626 patients (467 men [74.6%] and 159 women [25.4%]; median [interquartile range] age, 42 [27-57] years) who had trauma with hemorrhagic shock, a Cox regression analysis showed a significant overall survival benefit for plasma (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.47-0.90; P = .01) after adjustment for injury severity, age, and clinical trial cohort (COMBAT or PAMPer). A significant association with prehospital transport time was detected (from arrival on scene to arrival at the trauma center). Increased mortality was observed in patients in the standard care group when prehospital transport was longer than 20 minutes (HR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.05-4.30; P = .04), while increased mortality was not observed in patients in the prehospital plasma group (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.40-1.51; P = .46). No serious adverse events were associated with prehospital plasma transfusion. Conclusions and Relevance: These data suggest that prehospital plasma is associated with a survival benefit when transport times are longer than 20 minutes and that the benefit-risk ratio is favorable for use of prehospital plasma. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01838863 (COMBAT) and NCT01818427 (PAMPer).