Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Platelet transfusions are used across multiple patient populations to prevent and correct bleeding. This scoping review aimed to map the currently available systematic reviews (SRs) and evidence-based guidelines in the field of platelet transfusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic literature search was conducted in seven databases for SRs on effectiveness (including dose and timing, transfusion trigger and ratio to other blood products), production modalities and decision support related to platelet transfusion. The following data were charted: methodological features of the SR, population, concept and context features, outcomes reported, study design and number of studies included. Results were synthesized in interactive evidence maps. RESULTS We identified 110 SRs. The majority focused on clinical effectiveness, including prophylactic or therapeutic transfusions compared to no platelet transfusion (34 SRs), prophylactic compared to therapeutic-only transfusion (8 SRs), dose, timing (11 SRs) and threshold for platelet transfusion (15 SRs) and the ratio of platelet transfusion to other blood products in massive transfusion (14 SRs). Furthermore, we included 34 SRs on decision support, of which 26 evaluated viscoelastic testing. Finally, we identified 22 SRs on platelet production modalities, including derivation (4 SRs), pathogen inactivation (6 SRs), leucodepletion (4 SRs) and ABO/human leucocyte antigen matching (5 SRs). The SRs were mapped according to concept and clinical context. CONCLUSION An interactive evidence map of SRs and evidence-based guidelines in the field of platelet transfusion has been developed and identified multiple reviews. This work serves as a tool for researchers looking for evidence gaps, thereby both supporting research and avoiding unnecessary duplication.

Abstract

Patient Blood Management (PBM) is an evidence-based, multidisciplinary, patient-centred approach to optimizing the care of patients who might need a blood transfusion. This systematic review aimed to collect the best available evidence on the effectiveness of preoperative iron supplementation with or without erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) on red blood cell (RBC) utilization in all-cause anaemic patients scheduled for elective surgery. Five databases and two trial registries were screened. Primary outcomes were the number of patients and the number of RBC units transfused. Effect estimates were synthesized by conducting meta-analyses. GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. We identified 29 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 2 non-RCTs comparing the effectiveness of preoperative iron monotherapy, or iron + ESAs, to control (no treatment, usual care, placebo). We found that: (1) IV and/or oral iron monotherapy may not result in a reduced number of units transfused and IV iron may not reduce the number of patients transfused (low-certainty evidence); (2) uncertainty exists whether the administration route of iron therapy (IV vs oral) differentially affects RBC utilization (very low-certainty evidence); (3) IV ferric carboxymaltose monotherapy may not result in a different number of patients transfused compared to IV iron sucrose monotherapy (low-certainty evidence); (4) oral iron + ESAs probably results in a reduced number of patients transfused and number of units transfused (moderate-certainty evidence); (5) IV iron + ESAs may result in a reduced number of patients transfused (low-certainty evidence); (6) oral and/or IV iron + ESAs probably results in a reduced number of RBC units transfused in transfused patients (moderate-certainty evidence); (7) uncertainty exists about the effect of oral and/or IV iron + ESAs on the number of patients requiring transfusion of multiple units (very low-certainty evidence). Effect estimates of different haematological parameters and length of stay were synthesized as secondary outcomes. In conclusion, in patients with anaemia of any cause scheduled for elective surgery, the preoperative administration of iron monotherapy may not result in a reduced number of patients or units transfused (low-certainty evidence). Iron supplementation in addition to ESAs probably results in a reduced RBC utilization (moderate-certainty evidence).

Abstract

OBJECTIVES For anaemic elective surgery patients, current clinical practice guidelines weakly recommend the routine use of iron, but not erythrocyte-stimulating agents (ESAs), except for short-acting ESAs in major orthopaedic surgery. This recommendation is, however, not based on any cost-effectiveness studies. The aim of this research was to (1) systematically review the literature regarding cost effectiveness of preoperative iron and/or ESAs in anaemic, elective surgery patients and (2) update existing economic evaluations (EEs) with recent data. METHODS Eight databases and registries were searched for EEs and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting cost-effectiveness data on November 11, 2020. Data were extracted, narratively synthesized and critically appraised using the Philips reporting checklist. Pre-existing full EEs were updated with effectiveness data from a recent systematic review and current cost data. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed as cost per (quality-adjusted) life-year [(QA)LY] gained. RESULTS Only five studies (4 EEs and 1 RCT) were included, one on intravenous iron and four on ESAs + oral iron. The EE on intravenous iron only had an in-hospital time horizon. Therefore, cost effectiveness of preoperative iron remains uncertain. The three EEs on ESAs had a lifetime time horizon, but reported cost per (QA)LY gained of 20-65 million (GBP or CAD). Updating these analyses with current data confirmed ESAs to have a cost per (QA)LY gained of 3.5-120 million (GBP or CAD). CONCLUSIONS Cost effectiveness of preoperative iron is unproven, whereas routine preoperative ESA therapy cannot be considered cost effective in elective surgery, based on the limited available data. Future guidelines should reflect these findings.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES The donor medical questionnaire identifies a blood donor's history of known blood safety risks. Current Australian, Canadian, European and USA legislation temporarily defers blood donors who received different percutaneous needle treatments (i.e. tattooing, acupuncture and piercing) from blood donation. This systematic review aimed to scientifically underpin these deferrals by identifying the best available evidence on the association between percutaneous needle treatments and the risk of transfusion-transmissible infections (TTIs). MATERIALS AND METHODS Studies from three databases investigating the link between percutaneous needle treatments and TTIs (HBV, HCV and HIV infection) in blood donors were retained and assessed on eligibility by two reviewers independently. The association between percutaneous needle treatments and TTIs was expressed by conducting meta-analyses and calculating pooled effect measures (odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs). The GRADE methodology (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS We identified 1242 references and finally included 21 observational studies. Twenty studies assessed the link between percutaneous needle treatments and HCV infection and found that blood donors receiving these treatments had an increased risk of HCV infection (tattooing: pooled OR 5.28, 95% CI [4.33, 6.44], P < 0.00001 (low-quality evidence); acupuncture: pooled OR 1.56, 95% CI [1.17, 2.08], P = 0.03 (very low-quality evidence); and piercing: pooled OR 3.25, 95% CI [1.68, 6.30], P = 0.0005 (low-quality evidence)). CONCLUSION Percutaneous needle treatments may be associated with an increased HCV infection risk. Further high-quality studies are required to formulate stronger evidence-based recommendations on percutaneous needle treatments as a blood donor deferral criterion.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES The donor medical questionnaire is designed to aid blood establishments in supporting a safe blood supply. According to blood donor deferral policies, sexual risk behaviour (SRB) leads to a (temporary) deferral from blood donation. This systematic review aimed to scientifically underpin these policies by identifying the best available evidence on the association between SRB and the risk of transfusion transmissible infections (TTIs). MATERIALS & METHODS Studies from three databases investigating the link between SRB (excluding men who have sex with men (MSM)) and TTIs (HBV, HCV, HIV, Treponema pallidum) in donors from Western and Pacific countries were obtained and assessed on eligibility by two reviewers independently. The association between SRB and TTIs was expressed by calculating pooled effect measures via meta-analyses. The GRADE methodology (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of evidence. RESULTS We identified 3750 references and finally included 15 observational studies. Meta-analyses showed that there is a significant (P < 0.05) positive association between the following SRB and HBV and/or HCV infection: having sex with an intravenous drug user (high-certainty evidence), receiving money or goods for sex (moderate-high certainty evidence), having a sex partner with hepatitis/HIV (moderate-certainty evidence) and paid for sex or anal sex (low-certainty evidence). CONCLUSION Sexual risk behaviour (including having sex with an intravenous drug user, receiving money or goods for sex or having a sex partner with hepatitis/HIV) is probably associated with an increased risk of HBV/HCV infection in blood donors from Western and Pacific countries.