Reducing the risk of transfusion-transmitted cytomegalovirus infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Mainou M, Alahdab F, Tobian AA, Asi N, Mohammed K, Murad MH, Grossman BJ
Transfusion. 2016;56((6 Pt 2):):1569-80
BACKGROUND Leukoreduced (LR) or cytomegalovirus (CMV)-seronegative cellular blood components are commonly used to reduce the risk of transfusion-transmitted CMV infection in high-risk patients. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the evidence for the use of LR cellular blood components with or without concurrent CMV testing of donor units in patients undergoing chemotherapy or solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, in pregnant women, in very-low-birthweight infants, and in patients with primary immunodeficiency. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus from 1980 through February 2015. Studies were included if they had a comparison group. Two independent reviewers selected and appraised studies. Meta-analysis was performed when appropriate. RESULTS Of 457 studies screened, 11 were eligible. One study was excluded from the meta-analysis because the comparison performed differed significantly from the others. Meta-analysis of five studies that compared leukoreduction to transfusing CMV-untested blood components showed no significant difference in clinical CMV infection (relative risk [RR], 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-1.57) or laboratory CMV infection (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.08-1.37). Meta-analysis of three studies that compared leukoreduction to transfusing CMV-seronegative cellular components showed no significant difference in laboratory CMV infection (RR, 2.18; 95% CI, 0.96-4.98). Meta-analysis of two studies that compared adding CMV testing to leukoreduction (vs. leukoreduction alone) showed no significant difference in clinical or laboratory CMV infection. The certainty in estimates was low for all comparisons. CONCLUSION At present, the scientific evidence does not favor a single strategy for reducing the risk of transfusion-related CMV infection in high-risk patients.
Platelet transfusion: a systematic review of the clinical evidence
Kumar A, Mhaskar R, Grossman BJ, Kaufman RM, Tobian AA, Kleinman S, Gernsheimer T, Tinmouth AT, Djulbegovic B, AABB Platelet Transfusion Guidelines Panel
BACKGROUND Platelet (PLT) transfusion is indicated either prophylactically or therapeutically to reduce the risk of bleeding or to control active bleeding. Significant uncertainty exists regarding the appropriate use of PLT transfusion and the optimal threshold for transfusion in various settings. We formulated 12 key questions to assess the role of PLT transfusion. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS We performed a systematic review (SR) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane registry of controlled trials was performed. Methodologic quality of included studies was assessed and a meta-analysis was performed if more than two studies with similar designs were identified for a specific question. RESULTS Seventeen RCTs and 55 observational studies were included in the final SR. Results from RCTs showed a beneficial effect of prophylactic compared with therapeutic transfusion for the prevention of significant bleeding in patients with hematologic disorders undergoing chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation. We found no difference in significant bleeding events related to the PLT count threshold for transfusion or the dose of PLTs transfused. Overall methodologic quality of RCTs was moderate. Results from observational studies showed no evidence that PLT transfusion prevented significant bleeding in patients undergoing central venous catheter insertions, lumbar puncture, or other surgical procedures. The methodologic quality of observational studies was very low. CONCLUSION We provide a comprehensive assessment of evidence on the use of PLT transfusions in a variety of clinical settings. Our report summarizes current knowledge and identifies gaps to be addressed in future research.Copyright © 2014 AABB.
Red blood cell transfusion: a clinical practice guideline from the AABB
Carson JL, Grossman BJ, Kleinman S, Tinmouth AT, Marques MB, Fung MK, Holcomb JB, Illoh O, Kaplan LJ, Katz LM, et al
Annals of Internal Medicine. 2012;157((1):):49-58.
Description: Although approximately 85 million units of red blood cells (RBCs) are transfused annually worldwide, transfusion practices vary widely. The AABB (formerly, the American Association of Blood Banks) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations about hemoglobin concentration thresholds and other clinical variables that trigger RBC transfusions in hemodynamically stable adults and children. Methods: These guidelines are based on a systematic review of randomized clinical trials evaluating transfusion thresholds. We performed a literature search from 1950 to February 2011 with no language restrictions. We examined the proportion of patients who received any RBC transfusion and the number of RBC units transfused to describe the effect of restrictive transfusion strategies on RBC use. To determine the clinical consequences of restrictive transfusion strategies, we examined overall mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, cardiac events, pulmonary edema, stroke, thromboembolism, renal failure, infection, hemorrhage, mental confusion, functional recovery, and length of hospital stay. Recommendation 1: The AABB recommends adhering to a restrictive transfusion strategy (7 to 8 g/dL) in hospitalized, stable patients (Grade: strong recommendation; high-quality evidence). Recommendation 2: The AABB suggests adhering to a restrictive strategy in hospitalized patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease and considering transfusion for patients with symptoms or a hemoglobin level of 8 g/dL or less (Grade: weak recommendation; moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 3: The AABB cannot recommend for or against a liberal or restrictive transfusion threshold for hospitalized, hemodynamically stable patients with the acute coronary syndrome (Grade: uncertain recommendation; very low-quality evidence). Recommendation 4: The AABB suggests that transfusion decisions be influenced by symptoms as well as hemoglobin concentration (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence). 2012 American College of Physicians.