-
1.
Procedure-related bleeding risk in patients with cirrhosis and severe thrombocytopenia
Alvaro D, Caporaso N, Giovanni Giannini E, Iacobellis A, Morelli M, Toniutto P, Violi F
European journal of clinical investigation. 2021;:e13508
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Gaps of knowledge still exist about the potential association between severe thrombocytopenia and increased risk of procedure-associated bleeding in patients with liver disease. METHODS In this narrative review we aimed at examining the association between procedure-related bleeding risk and platelet count in patients with cirrhosis and severe thrombocytopenia in various settings. We updated to 2020 a previously conducted literature search using MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE. The search string included clinical studies, adult patients with chronic liver disease and thrombocytopenia undergoing invasive procedures, any interventions and comparators, and haemorrhagic events of any severity as outcome. RESULTS The literature search identified 1,276 unique publications, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analysed together with those identified by the previously search. Most of the new studies included in our analysis did not assess the association between post-procedural bleeding risk and platelet count alone in patients with chronic liver disease. Furthermore, some results could have been biased by prophylactic platelet transfusions. A few studies found that severe thrombocytopenia may be predictive of bleeding following percutaneous liver biopsy, dental extractions, percutaneous ablation of liver tumours, and endoscopic polypectomy. CONCLUSIONS Currently available literature cannot support definitive conclusions about the appropriate target platelet counts to improve the risk of bleeding in cirrhotic patients who underwent invasive procedures; moreover, it showed enormous variability in the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions.
-
2.
Expected individual benefit of prophylactic platelet transfusions in hemato-oncology patients based on bleeding risks
Cornelissen LL, Caram-Deelder C, Fustolo-Gunnink SF, Groenwold RHH, Stanworth SJ, Zwaginga JJ, van der Bom JG
Transfusion. 2021
-
-
-
Free full text
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prophylactic platelet transfusions prevent bleeding in hemato-oncology patients, but it is unclear how any benefit varies between patients. Our aim was to assess if patients with different baseline risks for bleeding benefit differently from a prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Using the data from the randomized controlled TOPPS trial (Trial of Platelet Prophylaxis), we developed a prediction model for World Health Organization grades 2, 3, and 4 bleeding risk (defined as at least one bleeding episode in a 30 days period) and grouped patients in four risk-quartiles based on this predicted baseline risk. Predictors in the model were baseline platelet count, age, diagnosis, disease modifying treatment, disease status, previous stem cell transplantation, and the randomization arm. RESULTS The model had a c-statistic of 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.64). There was little variation in predicted risks (quartiles 46%, 47%, and 51%), but prophylactic platelet transfusions gave a risk reduction in all risk quartiles. The absolute risk difference (ARD) was 3.4% (CI -12.2 to 18.9) in the lowest risk quartile (quartile 1), 7.4% (95% CI -8.4 to 23.3) in quartile 2, 6.8% (95% CI -9.1 to 22.9) in quartile 3, and 12.8% (CI -3.1 to 28.7) in the highest risk quartile (quartile 4). CONCLUSION In our study, generally accepted bleeding risk predictors had limited predictive power (expressed by the low c-statistic), and, given the wide confidence intervals of predicted ARD, could not aid in identifying subgroups of patients who might benefit more (or less) from prophylactic platelet transfusion.
PICO Summary
Population
Haemato-oncology patients enrolled in the TOPPS trial (n= 600).
Intervention
Platelet transfusions based on a threshold of 10 × 10 9/L (Prophylactic arm, n= 299).
Comparison
Platelet transfusions in case of active bleeding (Therapeutic arm, n= 301).
Outcome
47% of patients (279) developed at least one WHO grade 2, 3, or 4 bleeding during 30-day follow-up. The model had a c-statistic of 0.58. There was little variation in predicted risks (quartiles 46%, 47%, and 51%), but prophylactic platelet transfusions gave a risk reduction in all risk quartiles. The absolute risk difference was 3.4% in the lowest risk quartile (quartile 1), 7.4% in quartile 2, 6.8% in quartile 3, and 12.8% in the highest risk quartile (quartile 4).
-
3.
An epitope-based approach of HLA-matched platelets for transfusion: a noninferiority crossover randomized trial
Marsh JC, Stanworth SJ, Pankhurst LA, Kallon D, Gilbertson AZ, Pigden C, Deary AJ, Mora AS, Brown J, Laing ES, et al
Blood. 2021;137(3):310-322
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
Platelet transfusion refractoriness results in adverse outcomes and increased health care costs. Managing refractoriness resulting from HLA alloimmunization necessitates the use of HLA antigen-matched platelets but requires a large platelet donor pool and does not guarantee full matching. We report the first randomized, double-blind, noninferiority, crossover trial comparing HLA epitope-matched (HEM) platelets with HLA standard antigen-matched (HSM) platelet transfusions. Alloimmunized, platelet-refractory, thrombocytopenic patients with aplastic anemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, or acute myeloid leukemia were eligible. HEM platelets were selected using HLAMatchMaker epitope (specifically eplet) matching. Patients received up to 8 prophylactic HEM and HSM transfusions provided in random order. The primary outcome was 1-hour posttransfusion platelet count increment (PCI). Forty-nine patients were randomized at 14 UK hospitals. For intention to treat, numbers of evaluable transfusions were 107 and 112 for HEM and HSM methods, respectively. Unadjusted mean PCIs for HEM and HSM methods were 23.9 (standard deviation [SD], 15) and 23.5 (SD, 14.1), respectively (adjusted mean difference, -0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.9 to 2.8). Because the lower limit of the 95% CI was not greater than the predefined noninferiority limit, the HEM approach was declared noninferior to the HSM approach. There were no differences in secondary outcomes of platelet counts, transfusion requirements, and bleeding events. Adequate 1-hour PCI was more frequently observed, with a mean number of 3.2 epitope mismatches, compared with 5.5 epitope mismatches for inadequate 1-hour increments. For every additional epitope mismatch, the likelihood of an adequate PCI decreased by 15%. Epitope-matched platelets should be considered to support HLA alloimmunized patients. This trial was registered at www.isrctn.com as #ISRCTN23996532.
PICO Summary
Population
Alloimmunized, platelet-refractory, thrombocytopenic patients with aplastic anemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, or acute myeloid leukemia (n= 49).
Intervention
HLA epitope-matched (HEM) platelet transfusions.
Comparison
HLA standard antigen-matched (HSM) platelet transfusions.
Outcome
For intention to treat, numbers of evaluable transfusions were 107 and 112 for HEM and HSM methods, respectively. Unadjusted mean platelet count increments (PCI) for HEM and HSM methods were 23.9 (standard deviation [SD], 15) and 23.5 (SD, 14.1), respectively. There were no differences in secondary outcomes of platelet counts, transfusion requirements, and bleeding events. Adequate 1-hour PCI was more frequently observed, with a mean number of 3.2 epitope mismatches, compared with 5.5 epitope mismatches for inadequate 1-hour increments.
-
4.
Preterm neonates benefit from low prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold despite varying risk of bleeding or death
Fustolo-Gunnink SF, Fijnvandraat K, van Klaveren D, Stanworth S, Curley AE, Onland W, Steyerberg EW, de Kort E, d'Haens E, Hulzebos C, et al
Blood. 2019
Abstract
The Platelets for Neonatal Thrombocytopenia (PlaNeT-2) trial reported an unexpected overall benefit of a prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold of 25x109/L compared to 50x109/L for major bleeding and/or mortality in preterm neonates (7% absolute risk reduction). However, some neonates in the trial may have experienced little benefit or even harm from the 25x109/L threshold. We aimed to assess this heterogeneity of treatment effect in the PlaNet-2 trial, in order to investigate whether all preterm neonates benefit from the low threshold. We developed a multivariable logistic regression model in the PlaNet-2 data to predict baseline risk of major bleeding and/or mortality for all 653 neonates. We then ranked the neonates based on their predicted baseline risk and categorized them into four risk quartiles. Within these quartiles we assessed absolute risk difference between the 50x109/L and 25x109/L threshold group. A total of 146 neonates died or developed major bleeding. The internally validated C-statistic of the model was 0.63 (95% confidence interval 0.58 - 0.68). The 25x109/L threshold was associated with absolute risk reduction in all risk groups, varying from 4.9% in the lowest to 12.3% in the highest risk group. These results suggest that a 25x109/L prophylactic platelet count threshold can be adopted in all preterm neonates, irrespective of predicted baseline outcome risk. Future studies are needed to improve the predictive accuracy of the baseline risk model. Current Controlled Trials number ISRCTN87736839.
-
5.
Comparison of a therapeutic-only versus prophylactic platelet transfusion policy for people with congenital or acquired bone marrow failure disorders
Malouf R, Ashraf A, Hadjinicolaou A V, Doree C, Hopewell S, Estcourt L J
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018;5:CD012342.
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
Abstract
BACKGROUND Bone marrow disorders encompass a group of diseases characterised by reduced production of red cells, white cells, and platelets, or defects in their function, or both. The most common bone marrow disorder is myelodysplastic syndrome. Thrombocytopenia, a low platelet count, commonly occurs in people with bone marrow failure. Platetet transfusions are routinely used in people with thrombocytopenia secondary to bone marrow failure disorders to treat or prevent bleeding. Myelodysplastic syndrome is currently the most common reason for receiving a platelet transfusion in some Western countries. OBJECTIVES To determine whether a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy (transfusion given when patient is bleeding) is as effective and safe as a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (transfusion given to prevent bleeding according to a prespecified platelet threshold) in people with congenital or acquired bone marrow failure disorders. SEARCH METHODS We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and controlled before-after studies (CBAs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946), Ovid Embase (from 1974), PubMed (e-publications only), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 12 October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs, non-RCTs, and CBAs that involved the transfusion of platelet concentrates (prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis any dose, frequency, or transfusion trigger) and given to treat or prevent bleeding among people with congenital or acquired bone marrow failure disorders.We excluded uncontrolled studies, cross-sectional studies, and case-control studies. We excluded cluster-RCTs, non-randomised cluster trials, and CBAs with fewer than two intervention sites and two control sites due to the risk of confounding. We included all people with long-term bone marrow failure disorders that require platelet transfusions, including neonates. We excluded studies of alternatives to platelet transfusion, or studies of people receiving intensive chemotherapy or a stem cell transplant. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used the standard methodological procedures outlined by Cochrane. Due to the absence of evidence we were unable to report on any of the review outcomes. MAIN RESULTS We identified one RCT that met the inclusion criteria for this review. The study enrolled only nine adults with MDS over a three-year study duration period. The trial was terminated due to poor recruitment rate (planned recruitment 60 participants over two years). Assessment of the risk of bias was not possible for all domains. The trial was a single-centre, single-blind trial. The clinical and demographic characteristics of the participants were never disclosed. The trial outcomes relevant to this review were bleeding assessments, mortality, quality of life, and length of hospital stay, but no data were available to report on any of these outcomes.We identified no completed non-RCTs or CBAs.We identified no ongoing RCTs, non-RCTs, or CBAs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We found no evidence to determine the safety and efficacy of therapeutic platelet transfusion compared with prophylactic platelet transfusion for people with long-term bone marrow failure disorders. This review underscores the urgency of prioritising research in this area. People with bone marrow failure depend on long-term platelet transfusion support, but the only trial that assessed a therapeutic strategy was halted. There is a need for good-quality studies comparing a therapeutic platelet transfusion strategy with a prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy; such trials should include outcomes that are important to patients, such as quality of life, length of hospital admission, and risk of bleeding.
Clinical Commentary
Xiangrong He, MD, PhD & Claudia S. Cohn, MD, PhD, both of University of Minnesota, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology.
What is known?
Thrombocytopenia represents a common problem for patients withchronic bone marrow failure disorders, the most common of which are myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and anaplastic anemia (AA). In addition to thrombocytopenia, both morphologic and functional platelet abnormalities may be seen in these patients as well. Platelet transfusion support is the primary management option for thrombocytopenia and active bleeding in these patients. Platelets are usually transfused prophylactically at counts less than 10 x 109/L and with higher counts in patients with hemorrhage. As compared with no prophylaxis, prophylactic platelet transfusions have been shown to be superior in reducing moderate to severe bleeding, primarily in people with leukemia. However, the evidence of prophylactic use for platelet transfusions in people with chronic bone marrow failure is lacking. Meanwhile, platelets are a precious resource and platelet transfusion carries many risks. Thus, avoiding unnecessary prophylactic platelet transfusions will have significant financial and safety implications for health services.
What did this paper set out to examine?
The authors set out to to review in thrombocytopenic patients with chronic bone marrow failure, whether prophylactic transfusions are really necessary or whether these patients can be effectively supported with only therapeutic platelet transfusions given with the onset of bleeding. In particular, they wanted to show that a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion strategy is as effective and safe as a prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy for the prevention of clinically significant bleeding in thrombocytopenic patients with primary bone marrow failure disorders.
What did they show?
The review included all patients with MDS, acquired AA, or congenital bone marrow failure disorders that were not being actively treated with a stem cell transplant or intensive chemotherapy. To maximize the number of studies eligible for inclusion, not only randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but good quality non-RCTs, and controlled before-after studies were included. Only one trial met the inclusion criteria for this review. Unfortunately, the trial was incomplete due to an unexpected slow recruiting rate. Therefore, no results were provided by the trial authors. Although the review was unable to make any recommendations on prophylactic platelet transfusion policies for this patient population, it did identify an urgent need for good quality studies in this area.
What are the implications for practice and for future work?
Thrombocytopenia (platelet counts < 10 x 109/L) is one of the most common complications in patients with chronic bone marrow failure. For example, 40% to 65% of MDS patients have thrombocytopenia. Meanwhile, in some Western countries, bone marrow failure is one of the most common underlying reasons for receiving a prophylactic platelet transfusion. However, guidelines on a therapeutic platelet transfusion strategy versus a prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy in this population are still lacking. Due to the absence of relevant data, the current review was not able to reach any conclusions on the safety and efficacy of prophylactic platelet transfusion compared with therapeutic platelet transfusion for patients with chronic bone marrow failure. Nontheless, this review identified a major gap in the literature and underscored the urgency of prioritizing research in this area. In the meantime, platelet transfusions for people with bone marrow disorders should still be managed according to national transfusion guidelines.
-
6.
Use of platelet transfusions prior to lumbar punctures or epidural anaesthesia for the prevention of complications in people with thrombocytopenia
Estcourt L J, Malouf R, Hopewell S, Doree C, Van Veen J
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018;4:CD011980.
Abstract
BACKGROUND People with a low platelet count (thrombocytopenia) often require lumbar punctures or an epidural anaesthetic. Lumbar punctures can be diagnostic (haematological malignancies, subarachnoid haematoma, meningitis) or therapeutic (spinal anaesthetic, administration of chemotherapy). Epidural catheters are placed for administration of epidural anaesthetic. Current practice in many countries is to correct thrombocytopenia with platelet transfusions prior to lumbar punctures and epidural anaesthesia, in order to mitigate the risk of serious procedure-related bleeding. However, the platelet count threshold recommended prior to these procedures varies significantly from country to country. This indicates significant uncertainty among clinicians regarding the correct management of these patients. The risk of bleeding appears to be low, but if bleeding occurs it can be very serious (spinal haematoma). Consequently, people may be exposed to the risks of a platelet transfusion without any obvious clinical benefit.This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2016. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of different platelet transfusion thresholds prior to a lumbar puncture or epidural anaesthesia in people with thrombocytopenia (low platelet count). SEARCH METHODS We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), interrupted time series studies (ITSs), and cohort studies in CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 13 February 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs, nRCTs, CBAs, ITSs, and cohort studies involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in people of any age with thrombocytopenia requiring insertion of a lumbar puncture needle or epidural catheter.The original review only included RCTs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for including RCTs, nRCTs, CBAs, and ITSs. Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Results were only expressed narratively. MAIN RESULTS We identified no completed or ongoing RCTs, nRCTs, CBAs, or ITSs. No studies included people undergoing an epidural procedure. No studies compared different platelet count thresholds prior to a procedure.In this update we identified three retrospective cohort studies that contained participants who did and did not receive platelet transfusions prior to lumbar puncture procedures. All three studies were carried out in people with cancer, most of whom had a haematological malignancy. Two studies were in children, and one was in adults.The number of participants receiving platelet transfusions prior to the lumbar puncture procedures was not reported in one study. We therefore only summarised in a narrative form the relevant outcomes from two studies (150 participants; 129 children and 21 adults), in which the number of participants who received the transfusion was given.We judged the overall risk of bias for all reported outcomes for both studies as 'serious' based on the ROBINS-I tool.No procedure-related major bleeding occurred in the two studies that reported this outcome (2 studies, 150 participants, no cases, very low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference in the risk of minor bleeding (traumatic tap) in participants who received platelet transfusions before a lumbar puncture and those who did not receive a platelet transfusion before the procedure (2 studies, 150 participants, very low-quality evidence). One of the 14 adults who received a platelet transfusion experienced minor bleeding (traumatic tap; defined as at least 500 x 10(6)/L red blood cells in the cerebrospinal fluid); none of the seven adults who did not receive a platelet transfusion experienced this event. Ten children experienced
-
7.
Comparison of the hemostatic efficacy of pathogen-reduced platelets vs untreated platelets in patients with thrombocytopenia and malignant hematologic diseases: a randomized clinical trial
Garban F, Guyard A, Labussiere H, Bulabois C E, Marchand T, Mounier C, Caillot D, Bay J O, Coiteux V, Schmidt-Tanguy A, et al
Jama Oncology. 2018;4((4):):468-475
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Importance: Pathogen reduction of platelet concentrates may reduce transfusion-transmitted infections but is associated with qualitative impairment, which could have clinical significance with regard to platelet hemostatic capacity. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of platelets in additive solution treated with amotosalen-UV-A vs untreated platelets in plasma or in additive solution in patients with thrombocytopenia and hematologic malignancies. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Evaluation of the Efficacy of Platelets Treated With Pathogen Reduction Process (EFFIPAP) study was a randomized, noninferiority, 3-arm clinical trial performed from May 16, 2013, through January 21, 2016, at 13 French tertiary university hospitals. Clinical signs of bleeding were assessed daily until the end of aplasia, transfer to another department, need for a specific platelet product, or 30 days after enrollment. Consecutive adult patients with bone marrow aplasia, expected hospital stay of more than 10 days, and expected need of platelet transfusions were included. Interventions: At least 1 transfusion of platelets in additive solution with amotosalen-UV-A treatment, in plasma, or in additive solution. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of patients with grade 2 or higher bleeding as defined by World Health Organization criteria. Results: Among 790 evaluable patients (mean [SD] age, 55 [13.4] years; 458 men [58.0%]), the primary end point was observed in 126 receiving pathogen-reduced platelets in additive solution (47.9%; 95% CI, 41.9%-54.0%), 114 receiving platelets in plasma (43.5%; 95% CI, 37.5%-49.5%), and 120 receiving platelets in additive solution (45.3%; 95% CI, 39.3%-51.3%). With a per-protocol population with a prespecified margin of 12.5%, noninferiority was not achieved when pathogen-reduced platelets in additive solution were compared with platelets in plasma (4.4%; 95% CI, -4.1% to 12.9%) but was achieved when the pathogen-reduced platelets were compared with platelets in additive solution (2.6%; 95% CI, -5.9% to 11.1%). The proportion of patients with grade 3 or 4 bleeding was not different among treatment arms. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the hemostatic efficacy of pathogen-reduced platelets in thrombopenic patients with hematologic malignancies was noninferior to platelets in additive solution, such noninferiority was not achieved when comparing pathogen-reduced platelets with platelets in plasma. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01789762.
-
8.
Laboratory predictors of bleeding and the effect of platelet and RBC transfusions on bleeding outcomes in the PLADO trial
Uhl L, Assmann SF, Hamza TH, Harrison RW, Gernsheimer T, SlichterSJ
Blood.. 2017;130((10)):1247-1258.
Abstract
Bleeding remains a significant problem for many thrombocytopenic hematology/oncology patients in spite of platelet transfusions. Factors that might contribute to bleeding were analyzed for 16320 patient-days on or after their first platelet transfusion in 1077 adult patients enrolled in the Platelet Dose (PLADO) trial. All patients had a greatly increased risk of bleeding at platelet counts of <=5 x 109/L (odds ratio [OR], 3.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-4.8) compared with platelet counts >=81x 109/L. Platelet counts between 6 x 109/L and 80 x 109/L were also associated with a somewhat elevated bleeding risk in patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplants (SCTs) or chemotherapy but not in those undergoing autologous SCTs. Other significant laboratory predictors of bleeding were hematocrit <=25% (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.11-1.49), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) 30 to <=50 seconds (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.08-1.81; P = .01), aPTT >50 seconds (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.54-3.56), international normalized ratio (INR) 1.2 to 1.5 (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.17-1.83), and INR >1.5 (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.43-2.95). Transfusion of either platelets or red blood cells (RBCs) on days with bleeding was often not sufficient to change bleeding outcomes on the following day. Because bleeding occurred over a wide range of platelet counts among patients undergoing allogeneic SCT or chemotherapy and because platelet transfusions may not prevent bleeding, other risk factors may be involved. These may include low hematocrit and coagulation abnormalities. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00128713.Copyright © 2017 by The American Society of Hematology.
-
9.
Pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding
Estcourt LJ, Malouf R, Hopewell S, Trivella M, Doree C, Stanworth SJ, Murphy MF
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017;((7)):CD009072.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Platelet transfusions are used to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic. Despite improvements in donor screening and laboratory testing, a small risk of viral, bacterial, or protozoal contamination of platelets remains. There is also an ongoing risk from newly emerging blood transfusion-transmitted infections for which laboratory tests may not be available at the time of initial outbreak.One solution to reduce the risk of blood transfusion-transmitted infections from platelet transfusion is photochemical pathogen reduction, in which pathogens are either inactivated or significantly depleted in number, thereby reducing the chance of transmission. This process might offer additional benefits, including platelet shelf-life extension, and negate the requirement for gamma-irradiation of platelets. Although current pathogen-reduction technologies have been proven to reduce pathogen load in platelet concentrates, a number of published clinical studies have raised concerns about the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for post-transfusion platelet count recovery and the prevention of bleeding when compared with standard platelets.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding in people of any age requiring platelet transfusions. SEARCH METHODS We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 24 October 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA We included RCTs comparing the transfusion of pathogen-reduced platelets with standard platelets, or comparing different types of pathogen-reduced platelets. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS We identified five new trials in this update of the review. A total of 15 trials were eligible for inclusion in this review, 12 completed trials (2075 participants) and three ongoing trials. Ten of the 12 completed trials were included in the original review. We did not identify any RCTs comparing the transfusion of one type of pathogen-reduced platelets with another.Nine trials compared Intercept(R) pathogen-reduced platelets to standard platelets, two trials compared Mirasol(R) pathogen-reduced platelets to standard platelets; and one trial compared both pathogen-reduced platelets types to standard platelets. Three RCTs were randomised cross-over trials, and nine were parallel-group trials. Of the 2075 participants enrolled in the trials, 1981 participants received at least one platelet transfusion (1662 participants in Intercept(R) platelet trials and 319 in Mirasol(R) platelet trials).One trial included children requiring cardiac surgery (16 participants) or adults requiring a liver transplant (28 participants). All of the other participants were thrombocytopenic individuals who had a haematological or oncological diagnosis. Eight trials included only adults.Four of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, while the remaining eight included studies had some threats to validity.Overall, the quality of the evidence was low to high across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology.We are very uncertain as to whether pathogen-reduced platelets increase the risk of any bleeding (World Health Organization (WHO) Grade 1 to 4) (5 trials, 1085 participants; fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.15; I2 = 59%, random-effect RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38; I2 = 59%; low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of clinically significant bleeding complications (WHO Grade 2 or higher) (5 trials, 1392 participants; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.25; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), and there
-
10.
The effect of variation in donor platelet function on transfusion outcome: a semi-randomised controlled trial
Kelly AM, Garner SF, Foukaneli T, Godec TR, Herbert N, Kahan BC, Deary A, Bakrania L, Llewelyn C, Ouwehand WH, et al
Blood. 2017;130((2):):214-220
Abstract
The effect of variation in platelet function in platelet donors on patient outcome following platelet transfusion is unknown. This trial assessed the hypothesis that platelets collected from donors with highly responsive platelets to agonists in vitro assessed by flow cytometry (high responder donors), are cleared more quickly from the circulation than those from low responder donors, resulting in lower platelet count increments following transfusion. This parallel group, semi-randomised double-blinded trial was conducted in a single UK centre. Eligible patients were those 16 or older with thrombocytopenia secondary to bone marrow failure, requiring prophylactic platelet transfusion. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a platelet donation from a high or low responder donor when both were available, or when only one type of platelet was available patients received that. Participants, investigators and those assessing outcomes were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the platelet count increment 10-90 minutes following transfusion. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. Fifty one patients were assigned to receive platelets from low responder donors, and 49 from high responder donors (47 of which were randomised and 53 non-randomised). There was no significant difference in platelet count increment 10-90 minutes following transfusion in patients receiving platelets from high (mean 21.0 x109/L, 95% CI 4.9 to 37.2) or low (mean 23.3x109/L, 95% CI 7.8 to 38.9) responder donors (mean difference 2.3, 95%CI -1.1 to 5.7, p = 0.18). These results support the current policy of not selecting platelet donors on the basis of platelet function for prophylactic platelet transfusion.