1.
Transfusion of fresh-frozen plasma in critically ill patients with a coagulopathy before invasive procedures: a randomized clinical trial (CME)
Muller MC, Arbous MS, Spoelstra-de Man AM, Vink R, Karakus A, Straat M, Binnekade JM, de Jonge E, Vroom MB, Juffermans NP
Transfusion. 2015;55((1):):26-35.
-
-
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Prophylactic use of fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) is common practice in patients with a coagulopathy undergoing an invasive procedure. Evidence that FFP prevents bleeding is lacking, while risks of transfusion-related morbidity after FFP have been well demonstrated. We aimed to assess whether omitting prophylactic FFP transfusion in nonbleeding critically ill patients with a coagulopathy who undergo an intervention is noninferior to a prophylactic transfusion of FFP. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS A multicenter randomized open-label trial with blinded endpoint evaluation was performed in critically ill patients with a prolonged international normalized ratio (INR; 1.5-3.0). Patients undergoing placement of a central venous catheter, percutaneous tracheostomy, chest tube, or abscess drainage were eligible. Patients with clinically overt bleeding, thrombocytopenia, or therapeutic use of anticoagulants were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned to omitting or administering a prophylactic transfusion of FFP (12mL/kg). Outcomes were occurrence of postprocedural bleeding complications, INR correction, and occurrence of lung injury. RESULTS Due to slow inclusion, the trial was stopped before the predefined target enrollment was reached. Eighty-one patients were randomly assigned, 40 to FFP and 41 to no FFP transfusion. Incidence of bleeding did not differ between groups, with a total of one major and 13 minor bleedings (p=0.08 for noninferiority). FFP transfusion resulted in a reduction of INR to less than 1.5 in 54% of transfused patients. No differences in lung injury scores were observed. CONCLUSION In critically ill patients undergoing an invasive procedure, no difference in bleeding complications was found regardless whether FFP was prophylactically administered or not.Copyright 2014 AABB.
Clinical Commentary
Dr Simon Stanworth, NHS Blood & Transplant, Oxford, UK
What is known?
Audits continue to document that a common reason for transfusion of plasma is to non-bleeding critically ill patients with laboratory measures of abnormal coagulopathy and prior to invasive procedures. Although the broader observational literature argues against benefit for this practice, evidence from randomized controlled trials is very limited.
What did this paper set out to examine?
This paper describes a multi-centred randomized open-label trial in adult critically ill patients to determine whether FFP transfusion could be safely omitted prior to invasive procedures. The patients admitted to critical care were prospectively screened between 2010 and 2013 for prolongation of the INR. Patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a single dose of 12mg of FFP prior to defined invasive procedures which included insertion of a central venous catheter, for thoracocentesis, percutaneous tracheostomy, drainage of abscess or fluid collection. The primary outcome of the study was procedure related bleeding occurring within 24 hours after the procedure. Bleeding was assessed using a tool previously validated and published in the critically ill population. For this tool, major bleeding was defined if bleeding accompanied by any of the following; a decrease in Hb by more that 2g/dL in the absence of another course of bleeding, transfusion of two or more units of red cells without an increase in Hb, a decrease in systolic blood pressure by more that 20mmHg, an increase in heart rate or wound related bleeding requiring specific intervention.
What did they show?
Due to slow patient accrual the trial was stopped before the predefined target enrolment was reached which was indicated to be a sample size in each arm of 198 patients. 81 patients were randomly assigned, 42 FFP and 41 to no FFP transfusion. The incidence of bleeding did not differ between the two study group arms. One major bleed was reported but although this event rate was consistent with the prediction of the researchers, the lower event rate was considered too small to complete a planned inferiority analysis. There were 13 minor bleeds recorded but there is some uncertainty about these numbers given that the clinical significance of these events is unclear. It was also noted that transfusion resulted in a reduction of INR to less than 1.5 in 54% of the transfused patients. No differences were reported in lung injuries scores between the arms.
What are the implications for practice and for future work?
The researchers are to be commended for attempting to address a clinical important research question: that of the role of plasma transfusion prior to invasive procedures in critically ill patients. Unfortunately the trial failed to recruit to target and the findings are not able to provide the level of evidence required to refute a clinical role for plasma in this setting. There is a need for research to address the best diagnostic tests as well as the optimal role of plasma or other pro-haemostatic coagulation factors. Arguably another lesson from this trial is the value of pilot trials ahead of a larger trial which might, for example, identify issues with recruitment.