1.
Efficacy and safety of nafamostat mesilate anticoagulation in blood purification treatment of critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Lin Y, Shao Y, Liu Y, Yang R, Liao S, Yang S, Xu M, He J
Renal failure. 2022;44(1):1263-1279
Abstract
BACKGROUND Nafamostat mesilate (NM), a broad-spectrum and potent serine protease inhibitor, can be used as an anticoagulant during extracorporeal circulation, as well as a promising drug effective against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We conducted a systematic meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of NM administration in critically ill patients who underwent blood purification therapy (BPT). METHODS The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and PubMed were comprehensively searched from inception to August 20, 2021, for potential studies. RESULTS Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and seven observational studies with 2723 patients met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis demonstrated that conventional therapy (CT) significantly increased hospital mortality compared with NM administration (RR = 1.25, p = 0.0007). In subgroup analyses, the in-hospital mortality of the NM group was significantly lower than that of the anticoagulant-free (NA) group (RR = 1.31, p = 0.002). The CT interventions markedly elevated the risk ratio of bleeding complications by 45% (RR = 1.45, p = 0.010) compared with NM interventions. In another subgroup analysis, NM used exhibited a significantly lower risk of bleeding complications than those of the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) used (RR = 4.58, p = 0.020). The filter lifespan was decreased significantly (MD = -10.59, p < 0.0001) in the NA groups compared with the NM groups. Due to the poor quality of the included RCTs, these results should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION Given the better survival outcomes, lower risk of bleeding, NM anticoagulation seems to be a safe and efficient approach for BPT patients and could yield a favorable filter lifespan. More multi-center RCTs with large samples are required for further validation of this study.
2.
Effect of a fixed-ratio (1:1:1) transfusion protocol versus laboratory-results-guided transfusion in patients with severe trauma: a randomized feasibility trial
Nascimento B, Callum J, Tien H, Rubenfeld G, Pinto R, Lin Y, Rizoli S
CMAJ Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2013;185((12):):E583-9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Hemorrhage coupled with coagulopathy remains the leading cause of preventable in-hospital deaths among trauma patients. Use of a transfusion protocol with a predefined ratio of 1:1:1 (1 each of red blood cells [RBC], frozen plasma [FP] and platelets) has been associated with improved survival in retrospective studies in military and civilian settings, but such a protocol has its challenges and may increase the risk of respiratory complications. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the feasibility of a 1:1:1 transfusion protocol and its effect on mortality and complications among patients with severe trauma. METHODS We included 78 patients seen in a tertiary trauma centre between July 2009 and October 2011 who had hypotension and bleeding and were expected to need massive transfusion (>= 10 RBC units in 24 h). We randomly assigned them to either the fixed-ratio (1:1:1) transfusion protocol (n = 40) or to a laboratory-results-guided transfusion protocol (control; n = 38). The primary outcome, feasibility, was assessed in terms of blood product ratios and plasma wastage. Safety was measured based on 28-day mortality and survival free of acute respiratory distress syndrome. RESULTS Overall, a transfusion ratio of 1:1:1 was achieved in 57% (21/37) of patients in the fixed-ratio group, as compared with 6% (2/32) in the control group. A ratio of 1:1 (RBC:FP) was achieved in 73% (27/37) in the fixed-ratio group and 22% (7/32) in the control group. Plasma wastage was higher with the intervention protocol (22% [86/390] of FP units v. 10% [30/289] in the control group). The 28-day mortality and number of days free of acute respiratory distress syndrome were statistically similar between the groups. INTERPRETATION The fixed-ratio transfusion protocol was feasible in our study, but it was associated with increased plasma wastage. Larger randomized trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of such a protocol in trauma care. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT00945542.
3.
Design and preliminary results of a pilot randomized controlled trial on a 1:1:1 transfusion strategy: the trauma formula-driven versus laboratory-guided study
Nascimento B, Rizoli S, Rubenfeld G, Lin Y, Callum J, Tien HC
The Journal of Trauma. 2011;71((5, Suppl 1):):S418-26.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Retrospective reviews have recently shown an survival benefit for adopting a resuscitation strategy that transfuses plasma and platelets at a near 1:1 ratio with red blood cells (RBCs). However, a randomized controlled trial on the topic is lacking. We report on the design and preliminary results of our ongoing randomized control pilot trial (ClinicalTrial.gov NCT00945542). METHODS This is a 2-year feasibility randomized control trial at a single tertiary trauma center. Bleeding trauma patients were randomized to either a laboratory-driven or a formula-driven (1 plasma:1 platelet:1 RBC) transfusion protocols. Feasibility was assessed by analyzing for ability to enroll patients, appropriate activation of transfusion protocols, time to transfusion of each type of blood product, laboratory turnaround time, ratio of blood products transfused, and wastage of blood products. RESULTS From July 6, 2009, to May 31, 2010, n = 18 patients were randomized and included in the study. Issues that we noted were the need to do postrandomization exclusions, the need to have rapid and accurate predictors of massive bleeding to enroll patients quickly, and the need to have waived consent for study participation. As well, we noted that the logistics of administering 1:1:1 were formidable and required rapid access to thawed plasma. Similarly, challenges in the control arm of such a study included the turnaround time for obtaining laboratory results. CONCLUSION Despite major challenges, our initial experience suggests that with an organized system, it is possible to prospectively randomize massively bleeding trauma patients. The accomplishment of high ratios of plasma to RBCs is challenging with current thawing methods and unavailability of thawed plasma in Canada. Longer shelf-life for plasma and faster plasma thawing microwaves should overcome some of these obstacles. For a laboratory-guided transfusion protocol, massive transfusion protocols should be in place with faster turnaround time for coagulation tests. Finally, further research on predictors of massive transfusion is needed.