-
1.
Plasma and Platelet Transfusion Strategies in Critically Ill Children With Malignancy, Acute Liver Failure and/or Liver Transplantation, or Sepsis: From the Transfusion and Anemia EXpertise Initiative-Control/Avoidance of Bleeding
Lieberman L, Karam O, Stanworth SJ, Goobie SM, Crighton G, Goel R, Lacroix J, Nellis ME, Parker RI, Steffen K, et al
Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies. 2022;23(Supplement 1 1S):e37-e49
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To present the consensus statements with supporting literature for plasma and platelet transfusions in critically ill neonates and children with malignancy, acute liver disease and/or following liver transplantation, and sepsis and/or disseminated intravascular coagulation from the Transfusion and Anemia EXpertise Initiative-Control/Avoidance of Bleeding. DESIGN Systematic review and consensus conference of international, multidisciplinary experts in platelet and plasma transfusion management of critically ill children. SETTING Not applicable. PATIENTS Critically ill neonates and children with malignancy, acute liver disease and/or following liver transplantation, and sepsis and/or disseminated intravascular coagulation. INTERVENTIONS None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS A panel of 13 experts developed evidence-based and, when evidence was insufficient, expert-based statements for plasma and platelet transfusions in critically ill neonates and children with malignancy, acute liver disease and/or following liver transplantation, and sepsis and/or disseminated intravascular coagulation. These statements were reviewed and ratified by the 29 Transfusion and Anemia EXpertise Initiative-Control/Avoidance of Bleeding experts. A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, from inception to December 2020. Consensus was obtained using the Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method. Results were summarized using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method. We developed 12 expert consensus statements. CONCLUSIONS In the Transfusion and Anemia EXpertise Initiative-Control/Avoidance of Bleeding program, the current absence of evidence for use of plasma and/or platelet transfusion in critically ill children with malignancy, acute liver disease and/or following liver transplantation, and sepsis means that only expert consensus statements are possible for these areas of practice.
-
2.
Executive Summary of Recommendations and Expert Consensus for Plasma and Platelet Transfusion Practice in Critically Ill Children: From the Transfusion and Anemia EXpertise Initiative-Control/Avoidance of Bleeding (TAXI-CAB)
Nellis ME, Karam O, Valentine SL, Bateman ST, Remy KE, Lacroix J, Cholette JM, Bembea MM, Russell RT, Steiner ME, et al
Pediatric critical care medicine : a journal of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the World Federation of Pediatric Intensive and Critical Care Societies. 2022;23(1):34-51
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Critically ill children frequently receive plasma and platelet transfusions. We sought to determine evidence-based recommendations, and when evidence was insufficient, we developed expert-based consensus statements about decision-making for plasma and platelet transfusions in critically ill pediatric patients. DESIGN Systematic review and consensus conference series involving multidisciplinary international experts in hemostasis, and plasma/platelet transfusion in critically ill infants and children (Transfusion and Anemia EXpertise Initiative-Control/Avoidance of Bleeding [TAXI-CAB]). SETTING Not applicable. PATIENTS Children admitted to a PICU at risk of bleeding and receipt of plasma and/or platelet transfusions. INTERVENTIONS None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS A panel of 29 experts in methodology, transfusion, and implementation science from five countries and nine pediatric subspecialties completed a systematic review and participated in a virtual consensus conference series to develop recommendations. The search included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases, from inception to December 2020, using a combination of subject heading terms and text words for concepts of plasma and platelet transfusion in critically ill children. Four graded recommendations and 49 consensus expert statements were developed using modified Research and Development/UCLA and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. We focused on eight subpopulations of critical illness (1, severe trauma, intracranial hemorrhage, or traumatic brain injury; 2, cardiopulmonary bypass surgery; 3, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; 4, oncologic diagnosis or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation; 5, acute liver failure or liver transplantation; 6, noncardiac surgery; 7, invasive procedures outside the operating room; 8, sepsis and/or disseminated intravascular coagulation) as well as laboratory assays and selection/processing of plasma and platelet components. In total, we came to consensus on four recommendations, five good practice statements, and 44 consensus-based statements. These results were further developed into consensus-based clinical decision trees for plasma and platelet transfusion in critically ill pediatric patients. CONCLUSIONS The TAXI-CAB program provides expert-based consensus for pediatric intensivists for the administration of plasma and/or platelet transfusions in critically ill pediatric patients. There is a pressing need for primary research to provide more evidence to guide practitioners.
-
3.
Transfusion thresholds for guiding red blood cell transfusion
Carson JL, Stanworth SJ, Dennis JA, Trivella M, Roubinian N, Fergusson DA, Triulzi D, Dorée C, Hébert PC
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2021;12:Cd002042
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Full text
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND The optimal haemoglobin threshold for use of red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in anaemic patients remains an active field of research. Blood is a scarce resource, and in some countries, transfusions are less safe than in others because of inadequate testing for viral pathogens. If a liberal transfusion policy does not improve clinical outcomes, or if it is equivalent, then adopting a more restrictive approach could be recognised as the standard of care. OBJECTIVES The aim of this review update was to compare 30-day mortality and other clinical outcomes for participants randomised to restrictive versus liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion thresholds (triggers) for all clinical conditions. The restrictive transfusion threshold uses a lower haemoglobin concentration as a threshold for transfusion (most commonly, 7.0 g/dL to 8.0 g/dL), and the liberal transfusion threshold uses a higher haemoglobin concentration as a threshold for transfusion (most commonly, 9.0 g/dL to 10.0 g/dL). SEARCH METHODS We identified trials through updated searches: CENTRAL (2020, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to November 2020), Embase (1974 to November 2020), Transfusion Evidence Library (1950 to November 2020), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index (1990 to November 2020), and trial registries (November 2020). We checked the reference lists of other published reviews and relevant papers to identify additional trials. We were aware of one trial identified in earlier searching that was in the process of being published (in February 2021), and we were able to include it before this review was finalised. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised trials of surgical or medical participants that recruited adults or children, or both. We excluded studies that focused on neonates. Eligible trials assigned intervention groups on the basis of different transfusion schedules or thresholds or 'triggers'. These thresholds would be defined by a haemoglobin (Hb) or haematocrit (Hct) concentration below which an RBC transfusion would be administered; the haemoglobin concentration remains the most commonly applied marker of the need for RBC transfusion in clinical practice. We included trials in which investigators had allocated participants to higher thresholds or more liberal transfusion strategies compared to more restrictive ones, which might include no transfusion. As in previous versions of this review, we did not exclude unregistered trials published after 2010 (as per the policy of the Cochrane Injuries Group, 2015), however, we did conduct analyses to consider the differential impact of results of trials for which prospective registration could not be confirmed. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We identified trials for inclusion and extracted data using Cochrane methods. We pooled risk ratios of clinical outcomes across trials using a random-effects model. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We conducted predefined analyses by clinical subgroups. We defined participants randomly allocated to the lower transfusion threshold as being in the 'restrictive transfusion' group and those randomly allocated to the higher transfusion threshold as being in the 'liberal transfusion' group. MAIN RESULTS A total of 48 trials, involving data from 21,433 participants (at baseline), across a range of clinical contexts (e.g. orthopaedic, cardiac, or vascular surgery; critical care; acute blood loss (including gastrointestinal bleeding); acute coronary syndrome; cancer; leukaemia; haematological malignancies), met the eligibility criteria. The haemoglobin concentration used to define the restrictive transfusion group in most trials (36) was between 7.0 g/dL and 8.0 g/dL. Most trials included only adults; three trials focused on children. The included studies were generally at low risk of bias for key domains including allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data. Restrictive transfusion strategies reduced the risk of receiving at least one RBC transfusion by 41% across a broad range of clinical contexts (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.66; 42 studies, 20,057 participants; high-quality evidence), with a large amount of heterogeneity between trials (I² = 96%). Overall, restrictive transfusion strategies did not increase or decrease the risk of 30-day mortality compared with liberal transfusion strategies (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15; 31 studies, 16,729 participants; I² = 30%; moderate-quality evidence) or any of the other outcomes assessed (i.e. cardiac events (low-quality evidence), myocardial infarction, stroke, thromboembolism (all high-quality evidence)). High-quality evidence shows that the liberal transfusion threshold did not affect the risk of infection (pneumonia, wound infection, or bacteraemia). Transfusion-specific reactions are uncommon and were inconsistently reported within trials. We noted less certainty in the strength of evidence to support the safety of restrictive transfusion thresholds for the following predefined clinical subgroups: myocardial infarction, vascular surgery, haematological malignancies, and chronic bone-marrow disorders. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Transfusion at a restrictive haemoglobin concentration decreased the proportion of people exposed to RBC transfusion by 41% across a broad range of clinical contexts. Across all trials, no evidence suggests that a restrictive transfusion strategy impacted 30-day mortality, mortality at other time points, or morbidity (i.e. cardiac events, myocardial infarction, stroke, pneumonia, thromboembolism, infection) compared with a liberal transfusion strategy. Despite including 17 more randomised trials (and 8846 participants), data remain insufficient to inform the safety of transfusion policies in important and selected clinical contexts, such as myocardial infarction, chronic cardiovascular disease, neurological injury or traumatic brain injury, stroke, thrombocytopenia, and cancer or haematological malignancies, including chronic bone marrow failure. Further work is needed to improve our understanding of outcomes other than mortality. Most trials compared only two separate thresholds for haemoglobin concentration, which may not identify the actual optimal threshold for transfusion in a particular patient. Haemoglobin concentration may not be the most informative marker of the need for transfusion in individual patients with different degrees of physiological adaptation to anaemia. Notwithstanding these issues, overall findings provide good evidence that transfusions with allogeneic RBCs can be avoided in most patients with haemoglobin thresholds between the range of 7.0 g/dL and 8.0 g/dL. Some patient subgroups might benefit from RBCs to maintain higher haemoglobin concentrations; research efforts should focus on these clinical contexts.
PICO Summary
Population
Adults and children across a range of clinical contexts including surgery (48 studies, n= 21,433).
Intervention
Restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion threshold strategy.
Comparison
Liberal RBC transfusion threshold strategy.
Outcome
Restrictive transfusion strategies reduced the risk of receiving at least one RBC transfusion by 41% across a broad range of clinical contexts (risk ratio (RR) 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.66; 42 studies, 20,057 participants; high-quality evidence), with a large amount of heterogeneity between trials (I² = 96%). Overall, restrictive transfusion strategies did not increase or decrease the risk of 30-day mortality compared with liberal transfusion strategies (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.15; 31 studies, 16,729 participants; I² = 30%; moderate-quality evidence) or any of the other outcomes assessed (i.e. cardiac events (low-quality evidence), myocardial infarction, stroke, thromboembolism (all high-quality evidence)). High-quality evidence showed that the liberal transfusion threshold did not affect the risk of infection (pneumonia, wound infection, or bacteraemia). Transfusion-specific reactions were uncommon and were inconsistently reported within trials.
-
4.
Randomized Trial of Platelet-Transfusion Thresholds in Neonates
Curley A, Stanworth SJ, Willoughby K, Fustolo-Gunnink SF, Venkatesh V, Hudson C, Deary A, Hodge R, Hopkins V, Lopez Santamaria B, et al
The New England Journal of Medicine. 2019;380:242-251
-
-
-
-
Editor's Choice
Abstract
BACKGROUND Platelet transfusions are commonly used to prevent bleeding in preterm infants with thrombocytopenia. Data are lacking to provide guidance regarding thresholds for prophylactic platelet transfusions in preterm neonates with severe thrombocytopenia. METHODS In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned infants born at less than 34 weeks of gestation in whom severe thrombocytopenia developed to receive a platelet transfusion at platelet-count thresholds of 50,000 per cubic millimeter (high-threshold group) or 25,000 per cubic millimeter (low-threshold group). Bleeding was documented prospectively with the use of a validated bleeding-assessment tool. The primary outcome was death or new major bleeding within 28 days after randomization. RESULTS A total of 660 infants (median birth weight, 740 g; and median gestational age, 26.6 weeks) underwent randomization. In the high-threshold group, 90% of the infants (296 of 328 infants) received at least one platelet transfusion, as compared with 53% (177 of 331 infants) in the low-threshold group. A new major bleeding episode or death occurred in 26% of the infants (85 of 324) in the high-threshold group and in 19% (61 of 329) in the low-threshold group (odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06 to 2.32; P=0.02). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to rates of serious adverse events (25% in the high-threshold group and 22% in the low-threshold group; odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.67). CONCLUSIONS Among preterm infants with severe thrombocytopenia, those randomly assigned to receive platelet transfusions at a platelet-count threshold of less than 50,000 per cubic millimeter had a significantly higher rate of death or major bleeding within 28 days after randomization than those in the group that received less than 25,000 per cubic millimeter. (Funded by the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Research and Development Committee and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN87736839 .).
PICO Summary
Population
Infants born at less than 34 weeks of gestation in whom severe thrombocytopenia developed, from centres in Ireland, The Netherlands and UK (n= 660).
Intervention
platelet-count thresholds of 50,000 per cubic millimeter (high-threshold group, n= 328).
Comparison
25,000 per cubic millimeter (low-threshold group, n= 331).
Outcome
In the high-threshold group, 90% of the infants (296 of 328 infants) received at least one platelet transfusion, as compared with 53% (177 of 331 infants) in the low-threshold group. A new major bleeding episode or death occurred in 26% of the infants (85 of 324) in the high-threshold group and in 19% (61 of 329) in the low-threshold group (odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06 to 2.32). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to rates of serious adverse events (25% in the high-threshold group and 22% in the low-threshold group; odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.67).
-
5.
Adverse effects of red blood cell transfusions in neonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Keir A, Pal S, Trivella M, Lieberman L, Callum J, Shehata N, Stanworth SJ
Transfusion. 2016;56((11):):2773-2780
Abstract
BACKGROUND Controversy exists regarding the contribution of blood transfusions to a range of adverse clinical outcomes in neonates. The aim of our systematic review was to identify the broader literature on harmful effects and associations potentially attributable to red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS A comprehensive search of MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE was undertaken. Eligible studies included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies examining the effects of small volume (10-20 mL/kg) RBC transfusions on neonates. Primary outcomes of interest were mortality, chronic lung disease, retinopathy of prematurity, necrotizing enterocolitis, and intraventricular hemorrhage. Two independent authors conducted a review of abstracts and then of full-text article reviews as well as data extraction and quality assessments. RESULTS Sixty-one studies were eligible for inclusion, including 16 (26%) randomized studies. The majority of studies were nonrandomized (n = 45; 74%), which included 32 observational studies with and 13 studies without a comparator group. There was no evidence that rates of mortality differed between restrictive and liberal strategies for transfusion (eight RCTs: risk ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.89-1.672, heterogeneity = 0%) or for necrotizing enterocolitis (five RCTs: risk ratio, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.91-2.33; heterogeneity = 0%). A liberal strategy also was not superior to restrictive transfusion practice in the pooled randomized studies for rates of retinopathy of prematurity, chronic lung disease, or intraventricular hemorrhage. CONCLUSIONS Statistically significant differences in a range of harmful outcomes between neonates exposed to restrictive and liberal RBC transfusion practice were not found. However, the risks of bias identified in many studies and the lack of consistent reporting and definitions of events limits our conclusions.
-
6.
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.