Transfusion thresholds for guiding red blood cell transfusion

Blood Transfusion Reactions-A Comprehensive Review of the Literature including a Swiss Perspective

Blood transfusions have been the cornerstone of life support since the introduction of the ABO classification in the 20th century. The physiologic goal is to restore adequate tissue oxygenation when the demand exceeds the offer. Although it can be a life-saving therapy, blood transfusions can lead to serious adverse effects, and it is essential that physicians remain up to date with the current literature and are aware of the pathophysiology, initial management and risks of each type of transfusion reaction. We aim to provide a structured overview of the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, diagnostic approach and management of acute transfusion reactions based on the literature available in 2022. The numbers of blood transfusions, transfusion reactions and the reporting rate of transfusion reactions differ between countries in Europe. The most frequent transfusion reactions in 2020 were alloimmunizations, febrile non-hemolytic transfusion reactions and allergic transfusion reactions. Transfusion-related acute lung injury, transfusion-associated circulatory overload and septic transfusion reactions were less frequent. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the healthcare system with decreasing blood donations and blood supplies, as well as rising concerns within the medical community but also in patients about blood safety and transfusion reactions in COVID-19 patients. The best way to prevent transfusion reactions is to avoid unnecessary blood transfusions and maintain a transfusion-restrictive strategy. Any symptom occurring within 24 h of a blood transfusion should be considered a transfusion reaction and referred to the hemovigilance reporting system. The initial management of blood transfusion reactions requires early identification, immediate interruption of the transfusion, early consultation of the hematologic and ICU departments and fluid resuscitation.

Thresholds for blood transfusion in extremely preterm infants: A review of the latest evidence from two large clinical trials

There are two recently completed large randomized clinical trials of blood transfusions in the preterm infants most at risk of requiring them. Liberal and restrictive strategies were compared with composite primary outcome measures of death and neurodevelopmental impairment. Infants managed under restrictive guidelines fared no worse in regard to mortality and neurodevelopment in early life. The studies had remarkably similar demographics and used similar transfusion guidelines. In both, there were fewer transfusions in the restrictive arm. Nevertheless, there were large differences between the studies in regard to transfusion exposure with almost 3 times the number of transfusions per participant in the transfusion of prematures (TOP) study. Associated with this, there were differences between the studies in various outcomes. For example, the combined primary outcome of death or neurodevelopmental impairment was more likely to occur in the TOP study and the mortality rate itself was considerably higher. Whilst the reasons for these differences are likely multifactorial, it does raise the question as to whether they could be related to the transfusions themselves? Clearly, every effort should be made to reduce exposure to transfusions and this was more successful in the Effects of Transfusion Thresholds on Neurocognitive Outcomes (ETTNO) study. In this review, we look at factors which may explain these transfusion differences and the differences in outcomes, in particular neurodevelopment at age 2 years. In choosing which guidelines to follow, centers using liberal guidelines should be encouraged to adopt more restrictive ones. However, should centers with more restrictive guidelines change to ones similar to those in the studies? The evidence for this is less compelling, particularly given the wide range of transfusion exposure between studies. Individual centers already using restrictive guidelines should assess the validity of the findings in light of their own transfusion experience. In addition, it should be remembered that the study guidelines were pragmatic and acceptable to a large number of centers. The major focus in these guidelines was on hemoglobin levels which do not necessarily reflect tissue oxygenation. Other factors such as the level of erythropoiesis should also be taken into account before deciding whether to transfuse.

Supportive methods for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia then and now: A compilation for clinical practice

Survival of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia has significantly improved over the past decades. In the early years of chemotherapeutic development, improvement in survival rates could be attained only by increasing the cytostatic dose, also by modulation of the frequency and combination of chemotherapeutic agents associated with severe short- and long-time side-effects and toxicity in a developing child's organism. Years later, new treatment options have yielded promising results through targeted immune and molecular drugs, especially in relapsed and refractory leukemia, and are continuously added to conventional therapy or even replace first-line treatment. Compared to conventional strategies, these new therapies have different side-effects, requiring special supportive measures. Supportive treatment includes the prevention of serious acute and sometimes life-threatening events as well as managing therapy-related long-term side-effects and preemptive treatment of complications and is thus mandatory for successful oncological therapy. Inadequate supportive therapy is still one of the main causes of treatment failure, mortality, poor quality of life, and unsatisfactory long-term outcome in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. But nowadays it is a challenge to find a way through the flood of supportive recommendations and guidelines that are available in the literature. Furthermore, the development of new therapies for childhood leukemia has changed the range of supportive methods and must be observed in addition to conventional recommendations. This review aims to provide a clear and recent compilation of the most important supportive methods in the field of childhood leukemia, based on conventional regimes as well as the most promising new therapeutic approaches to date.