0
selected
-
1.
Platelet Transfusion before CVC Placement in Patients with Thrombocytopenia
van Baarle FLF, van de Weerdt EK, van der Velden Wjfm, Ruiterkamp RA, Tuinman PR, Ypma PF, van den Bergh WM, Demandt AMP, Kerver ED, Jansen AJG, et al
The New England journal of medicine. 2023;388(21):1956-1965
-
-
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Transfusion guidelines regarding platelet-count thresholds before the placement of a central venous catheter (CVC) offer conflicting recommendations because of a lack of good-quality evidence. The routine use of ultrasound guidance has decreased CVC-related bleeding complications. METHODS In a multicenter, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned patients with severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count, 10,000 to 50,000 per cubic millimeter) who were being treated on the hematology ward or in the intensive care unit to receive either one unit of prophylactic platelet transfusion or no platelet transfusion before ultrasound-guided CVC placement. The primary outcome was catheter-related bleeding of grade 2 to 4; a key secondary outcome was grade 3 or 4 bleeding. The noninferiority margin was an upper boundary of the 90% confidence interval of 3.5 for the relative risk. RESULTS We included 373 episodes of CVC placement involving 338 patients in the per-protocol primary analysis. Catheter-related bleeding of grade 2 to 4 occurred in 9 of 188 patients (4.8%) in the transfusion group and in 22 of 185 patients (11.9%) in the no-transfusion group (relative risk, 2.45; 90% confidence interval [CI], 1.27 to 4.70). Catheter-related bleeding of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 4 of 188 patients (2.1%) in the transfusion group and in 9 of 185 patients (4.9%) in the no-transfusion group (relative risk, 2.43; 95% CI, 0.75 to 7.93). A total of 15 adverse events were observed; of these events, 13 (all grade 3 catheter-related bleeding [4 in the transfusion group and 9 in the no-transfusion group]) were categorized as serious. The net savings of withholding prophylactic platelet transfusion before CVC placement was $410 per catheter placement. CONCLUSIONS The withholding of prophylactic platelet transfusion before CVC placement in patients with a platelet count of 10,000 to 50,000 per cubic millimeter did not meet the predefined margin for noninferiority and resulted in more CVC-related bleeding events than prophylactic platelet transfusion. (Funded by ZonMw; PACER Dutch Trial Register number, NL5534.).
PICO Summary
Population
Patients with severe thrombocytopenia enrolled in the PACER randomised controlled trial (n= 338).
Intervention
Placement of a central venous catheter (CVC) with one unit of prophylactic platelet transfusion (188 placements).
Comparison
Placement of an CVC without a platelet transfusion (185 placements).
Outcome
A total of 373 episodes of CVC placement involving 338 patients were included in the per-protocol primary analysis. Catheter-related bleeding of grade 2 to 4 occurred in 9 of 188 patients (4.8%) in the transfusion group and in 22 of 185 patients (11.9%) in the no-transfusion group (relative risk, 2.45; 90% confidence interval (CI), [1.27, 4.70]). Catheter-related bleeding of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 4 of 188 patients (2.1%) in the transfusion group and in 9 of 185 patients (4.9%) in the no-transfusion group (relative risk, 2.43; 95% CI [0.75, 7.93]). There were 15 adverse events, of these events 13 (all grade 3 catheter-related bleeding [4 in the transfusion group and 9 in the no-transfusion group]) were categorized as serious. The net savings of withholding prophylactic platelet transfusion before CVC placement was $410 per catheter placement.
-
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.
A no-prophylaxis platelet-transfusion strategy for hematologic cancers
Stanworth SJ, Estcourt LJ, Powter G, Kahan BC, Dyer C, Choo L, Bakrania L, Llewelyn C, Littlewood T, Soutar R, et al
New England Journal of Medicine. 2013;368((19):):1771-80.
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
Abstract
BACKGROUND The effectiveness of platelet transfusions to prevent bleeding in patients with hematologic cancers remains unclear. This trial assessed whether a policy of not giving prophylactic platelet transfusions was as effective and safe as a policy of providing prophylaxis. METHODS We conducted this randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial at 14 centers in the United Kingdom and Australia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive, or not to receive, prophylactic platelet transfusions when morning platelet counts were less than 10x10(9) per liter. Eligible patients were persons 16 years of age or older who were receiving chemotherapy or undergoing stem-cell transplantation and who had or were expected to have thrombocytopenia. The primary end point was bleeding of World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2, 3, or 4 up to 30 days after randomization. RESULTS A total of 600 patients (301 in the no-prophylaxis group and 299 in the prophylaxis group) underwent randomization between 2006 and 2011. Bleeding of WHO grade 2, 3, or 4 occurred in 151 of 300 patients (50%) in the no-prophylaxis group, as compared with 128 of 298 (43%) in the prophylaxis group (adjusted difference in proportions, 8.4 percentage points; 90% confidence interval, 1.7 to 15.2; P=0.06 for noninferiority). Patients in the no-prophylaxis group had more days with bleeding and a shorter time to the first bleeding episode than did patients in the prophylaxis group. Platelet use was markedly reduced in the no-prophylaxis group. A prespecified subgroup analysis identified similar rates of bleeding in the two study groups among patients undergoing autologous stem-cell transplantation. CONCLUSIONS The results of our study support the need for the continued use of prophylaxis with platelet transfusion and show the benefit of such prophylaxis for reducing bleeding, as compared with no prophylaxis. A significant number of patients had bleeding despite prophylaxis. (Funded by the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Research and Development Committee and the Australian Red Cross Blood Service; TOPPS Controlled-Trials.com number, ISRCTN08758735.).
PICO Summary
Population
Patients 16 years old or older, with hematologic cancers enrolled at 14 centres in the United Kingdom and Australia (n= 600).
Intervention
Prophylactic platelet transfusions (Prophylaxis group, n= 299).
Comparison
No prophylactic platelet transfusions (No-prophylaxis group, n= 301).
Outcome
Bleeding of WHO grade 2, 3, or 4 occurred in 151 of 300 patients (50%) in the no-prophylaxis group, as compared with 128 of 298 (43%) in the prophylaxis group (adjusted difference in proportions, 8.4 percentage points; 90% confidence interval, 1.7 to 15.2). Patients in the no-prophylaxis group had more days with bleeding and a shorter time to the first bleeding episode than did patients in the prophylaxis group. Platelet use was markedly reduced in the no-prophylaxis group. A prespecified subgroup analysis identified similar rates of bleeding in the two study groups among patients undergoing autologous stem-cell transplantation.