Low levels of prothrombin time (INR) and platelets do not increase the risk of significant bleeding when placing central venous catheters

Central venous catheters: Which, when and how

Short-term or long-term CVCs are now considered the standard of practice for the administration of chemotherapy, fluid therapy, antibiotic therapy, and parenteral nutrition. Central venous access catheters are broadly divided into tunneled or non-tunneled catheters. Tunneled catheters can be further subdivided into totally implanted and totally not implanted devices. Device selection generally depends on various factors such as availability of peripheral veins, expected duration of therapy, and desired flow rate. Ultrasound-guided access is the safest technique for central venous access compared to the landmark technique and departments should strive to for a 100% ultrasound guided access. This review gives a basic overview of the differences of CVC catheters including PICCs, Hickman-catheters and port-catheters along with the criteria for CVC selection. It will also describe technical tips on placement of CVCs. Finally, it aims to highlight complications which are associated with CVC placement and options to treat or prevent them.

Prophylactic platelet transfusion and risk of bleeding associated with ultrasound-guided central venous access in patients with severe thrombocytopenia

BACKGROUND

Reported risk of bleeding complications after central catheter access in patients with thrombocytopenia is highly variable. Current guidelines recommend routine prophylactic platelet (PLT) transfusion before central venous catheter placement in patients with severe thrombocytopenia. Nevertheless, the strength of such recommendations is weak and supported by observational studies including few patients with very low PLT counts (<20 × 109 /L). This study aims to assess the risk of bleeding complications related to using or not using prophylactic PLT transfusion before ultrasound-guided central venous access in patients with very low PLT counts.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with very low PLT counts (<20 × 109 /L) subjected to ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization between January 2011 and November 2019 in a university hospital. Bleeding complications were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. A multivariate logistic regression was conducted to assess the risk of major and minor bleeding complications comparing patients who did or did not receive prophylactic PLT transfusion for the procedure. Multiple imputation by chained equations was used to handle missing data. A two-tailed p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Among 221 patients with very low PLT counts, 72 received prophylactic PLT transfusions while 149 did not. Baseline characteristics were similar between transfused and nontransfused patients. No major bleeding events were identified, while minor bleeding events were recognized in 35.7% of patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no significant differences in bleeding complications between patients who received prophylactic PLT transfusions and those who did not (odds ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.45-1.55, p = 0.567). Additional complete case and sensitivity analyses yielded results similar to those of the main analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center retrospective cohort study of ultrasound-guided central venous access in patients with very low PLT counts, no major bleeding was identified, and prophylactic PLT transfusions did not significantly decrease minor bleeding events.

Bleeding Complications in Uremic Patients After Ultrasound-Guided Central Venous Catheter Placement

Introduction

Bleeding associated with elevated blood urea nitrogen (BUN) is a known complication. Patients with uremia require a central venous catheter insertion by dialysis. The relation between BUN and bleeding complications during central venous catheter insertion is not yet clear.

Objective

We described the frequency of complications associated with central venous catheter implantation in uremic patients and evaluated the statistical relationship between bleeding complications and catheter type, number of punctures, and catheter insertion site. Also, we determined if any value of BUN is associated with bleeding complications.

Methods

We included patients with a serum value of BUN >70 mg/dl that required insertion of a central venous catheter. The quantitative variables were expressed through the measure of central tendency. A bivariate analysis and a ROC curve were performed.

Results

A total of 273 catheters were included in this study. Bleeding complications were detected in 69 cases (25.3%), and local bleeding was the most frequent complication in 51/69 cases. Statistically significant association was not established. We did not find a specific cut-off value directly related to BUN levels and the rate of complications.

Conclusion

Bleeding complications associated with the insertion of central venous catheter and the suspected disorder of hemostasis given by BUN levels >70 mg/dl are common. It was not possible to determine a BUN cut-off value to predict complications. The association analysis was not conclusive. High BUN levels should not be considered a high-risk condition for central venous cannulation under ultrasound guidance performed by trained personnel.

Contribution of Coagulopathy on the Risk of Bleeding After Central Venous Catheter Placement in Critically Ill Thrombocytopenic Patients

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Critically ill patients often undergo central venous catheter placement during thrombocytopenia and/or coagulopathy. It is unclear whether severe coagulopathy increases the risk of postprocedural bleeding in critically ill patients with severe thrombocytopenia.

The effect of vitamin K on prothrombin time in critically ill patients: an observational registry study

Background

Previous studies have indicated that vitamin K deficiency is common in non-bleeding critically ill patients with slightly prolonged prothrombin time-international normalized ratio (PT-INR). It has never been investigated thoroughly whether the administration of vitamin K to these patients could affect their PT-INR. Therefore, the aim of this registry study was to evaluate changes in PT-INR in response to vitamin K in critically ill patients with PT-INR in the range of 1.3–1.9.

Methods

Patients admitted to a mixed 9-bed general intensive care unit at a University Hospital, between 2013 and 2019 (n = 4541) with a PT-INR between 1.3 and 1.9 at any time during the stay were identified. Patients who received vitamin K with appropriate sampling times for PT-INR and without exclusion criteria were matched with propensity score to patients from the same cohort who did not receive vitamin K (controls). PT-INR was measured at admission, within 12 h before vitamin K administration and 12–36 h following vitamin K administration. Exclusion criteria included pre-existing liver cirrhosis, any plasma or platelet transfusion, or > 1 unit red blood cell transfusion between PT-INR samplings.

Results

Propensity score matching resulted in two groups of patients with 129 patients in each group. PT-INR decreased in both groups (1.4 [1.3–1.4] in the vitamin K group and 1.4 [1.3–1.6] in the controls, p < 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively). The decrease in PT-INR was slightly more pronounced in patients who received vitamin K (delta PT-INR − 0.10 [− 0.30 to − 0.10] in the vitamin K group and − 0.10 [− 0.20 to 0.10] in the controls, p = 0.01).

Conclusion

In critically ill patients with a PT-INR of 1.3–1.9, the administration of vitamin K resulted in a slightly larger decrease of PT-INR 12–36 h after administration compared to controls. Future studies should focus on identifying which patient populations may benefit most from vitamin K administration as well as whether vitamin K could be a better alternative than plasma or prothrombin complex concentrate to improve PT-INR before non-emergent invasive procedures.

Mortality in Children With Severe Head Trauma: Predictive Factors and Proposal for a New Predictive Scale

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury is a public health problem around the world, and recognition of systemic sources of secondary brain lesions is crucial to improve outcome.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the main predictors of mortality and to propose a grading scale to measure the risk of death.

METHODS

This retrospective study was based on medical records of children with severe traumatic brain injury who were hospitalized at a level I pediatric trauma center between January 2000 and December 2005. Multiple logistic regression analysis was done to identify independent factors related to mortality. A receiver-operating characteristics curve was performed to verify the accuracy of the multiple logistic regression, and associations that increased mortality were verified.

RESULTS

We identified 315 children with severe head injury. Median Glasgow Coma Scale score was 6, and median Pediatric Trauma Score was 4. Global mortality rate was 30%, and deaths occurred despite adequate medical management within the first 48 hours in 79% of the patients. Age < 2 years (P = .02), Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 5 (P < 10), accidental hypothermia (P = .0002), hyperglycemia (P = .0003), and coagulation disorders (P = .02) were all independent factors predicting mortality. A prognostic scale ranging from 0 to 6 that included these independent factors was then calculated for each patient and resulted in mortality rates ranging from 1% with a score of 6 to 100% with a score of 0.

CONCLUSION

Independent and modifiable mortality predictors could be identified and used for a new grading scale correlated with the risk of mortality in pediatric traumatic brain injury.

The risk of bleeding with tunneled dialysis catheter placement

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk of bleeding associated with tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) placement in a large population of hemodialysis patients who were either anticoagulated or were taking antithrombotic medications.

METHODS

Medical records obtained over a two-year period were queried in order to select two groups of study cases. The first was a Med group (n = 458), cases which had a TDC placed while taking the antithrombotic medications (warfarin, clopidogrel or acetylsalicylic acid [ASA]) which were not discontinued or held. The second was a Declot Failure (DF) group (n = 941) and consisted of cases in which a TDC had been placed immediately following a failed arteriovenous access thrombectomy procedure in which they had been anticoagulated using unfractionated heparin. The results obtained in these two groups were compared to the incidence of bleeding observed in a cohort of 6555 TDC placements that had been performed previously referred to as the Control group.

RESULTS

The incidence of bleeding in the Control group was 0.46%. The incidence of bleeding in the DF group was 0.44% and in the Med group was 0.36%. No patient had bleeding that required transfusion, hospitalization, or catheter removal.

CONCLUSIONS

Based upon these data, it seems reasonable to classify the TDC placement procedure as having a very low risk of bleeding and to not require preprocedure laboratory testing. The value of suspending antithrombotic medications prior to TDC placement cannot be supported.

Plasma transfusions prior to insertion of central lines for people with abnormal coagulation

BACKGROUND

The insertion of central venous catheters (CVCs) may be associated with peri- and post-procedural bleeding. People who require a central line often have disorders of coagulation as a result of their underlying illness, co-morbidities or the effects of treatment. Clinical practice in some institutions is to mitigate the risk of bleeding in these patients by prophylactically transfusing fresh frozen plasma (FFP) in order to correct clotting factor deficiencies prior to central line insertion. However, FFP transfusion is not without risk, and it remains unclear whether this intervention is associated with reduced rates of bleeding or other clinically-meaningful outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of different prophylactic plasma transfusion regimens prior to central line insertion in people with abnormal coagulation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 3), PubMed (e-publications only), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946), Ovid Embase (from 1974), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950) and ongoing trial databases to 1 March 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs involving transfusions of plasma to prevent bleeding in people of any age with abnormal coagulation requiring insertion of a central venous catheter, published in English.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified four trials eligible for inclusion, of which three are ongoing. We did not exclude any studies because they were not published in English.The included study randomised 81 adults in intensive care whose INR (International Normalised Ratio) was greater than or equal to 1.5 to no FFP or to a single dose of 12 mL/kg FFP prior to undergoing central venous catheterisation (58 participants) or other invasive procedure (23 participants). It is the subgroup of 58 adults undergoing CVC insertion that were included in this review, the study authors provided unpublished data for this review's outcomes.The quality of the evidence was low or very low across different outcomes according to the GRADE methodology. The included study was at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel and imbalance in the number of participants who had liver disease between study arms.There was insufficient evidence to determine a difference in major procedure-related bleeding within 24 hours (one RCT; 58 participants; no events in either study arm, very low-quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether FFP reduces minor procedure-related bleeding within 24 hours of the study (one RCT; 58 participants, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.70, very low-quality evidence).No studies were found that looked at: all-cause mortality; the proportion of participants receiving plasma or red cell transfusions; serious adverse reactions (transfusion or line-related complications); number of days in hospital; change in INR; or quality of life.The three ongoing studies are still recruiting participants (expected recruitment: up to 355 participants in total). and are due to be completed by February 2018.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is only very limited evidence from one RCT to inform the decision whether or not to administer prophylactic plasma prior to central venous catheterisation for people with abnormal coagulation. It is not possible from the current RCT evidence to recommend whether or not prophylactic plasma transfusion is beneficial or harmful in this situation. The three ongoing RCTs will not be able to answer this review's questions, because they are small studies and do not address all of the comparisons included in this review (355 participants in total). To detect an increase in the proportion of participants who had major bleeding from 1 in 100 to 2 in 100 would require a study containing at least 4634 participants (80% power, 5% significance).

Risk of Procedural Hemorrhage

Patients who are critically ill and hospitalized often require invasive procedures as a part of their medical care. Each procedure carries a unique set of risks and associated complications, but common to all of them is the risk of hemorrhage. Central venous catheterization, arterial catheterization, paracentesis, thoracentesis, tube thoracostomy, and lumbar puncture constitute a majority of the procedures performed in patients who are hospitalized. In this article, the authors will discuss the risk factors for bleeding complications from each of these procedures and methods to minimize risk. Physicians often correct coagulopathy prior to procedures to decrease bleeding risk, but there is minimal evidence to support this practice.

Comparison of different platelet transfusion thresholds prior to insertion of central lines in patients with thrombocytopenia

BACKGROUND

Patients with a low platelet count (thrombocytopenia) often require the insertion of central lines (central venous catheters (CVCs)). CVCs have a number of uses; these include: administration of chemotherapy; intensive monitoring and treatment of critically-ill patients; administration of total parenteral nutrition; and long-term intermittent intravenous access for patients requiring repeated treatments. Current practice in many countries is to correct thrombocytopenia with platelet transfusions prior to CVC insertion, in order to mitigate the risk of serious procedure-related bleeding. However, the platelet count threshold recommended prior to CVC insertion varies significantly from country to country. This indicates significant uncertainty among clinicians of the correct management of these patients. The risk of bleeding after a central line insertion appears to be low if an ultrasound-guided technique is used. Patients may therefore be exposed to the risks of a platelet transfusion without any obvious clinical benefit.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different platelet transfusion thresholds prior to the insertion of a central line in patients with thrombocytopenia (low platelet count).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950) and ongoing trial databases to 23 February 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in patients of any age with thrombocytopenia requiring insertion of a CVC.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

One RCT was identified that compared different platelet transfusion thresholds prior to insertion of a CVC in people with chronic liver disease. This study is still recruiting participants (expected recruitment: up to 165 participants) and is due to be completed in December 2017. There were no completed studies. There were no studies that compared no platelet transfusions to a platelet transfusion threshold.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from RCTs to determine whether platelet transfusions are required prior to central line insertion in patients with thrombocytopenia, and, if a platelet transfusion is required, what is the correct platelet transfusion threshold. Further randomised trials with robust methodology are required to develop the optimal transfusion strategy for such patients. The one ongoing RCT involving people with cirrhosis will not be able to answer this review's questions, because it is a small study that assesses one patient group and does not address all of the comparisons included in this review. To detect an increase in the proportion of participants who had major bleeding from 1 in 100 to 2 in 100 would require a study containing at least 4634 participants (80% power, 5% significance).

Comparison of different platelet count thresholds to guide administration of prophylactic platelet transfusion for preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders after myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic due to bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and previously updated in 2012 that addressed four separate questions: prophylactic versus therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy; prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold; prophylactic platelet transfusion dose; and platelet transfusions compared to alternative treatments. This review has now been split into four smaller reviews looking at these questions individually; this review compares prophylactic platelet transfusion thresholds.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether different platelet transfusion thresholds for administration of prophylactic platelet transfusions (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding) affect the efficacy and safety of prophylactic platelet transfusions in preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6, 23 July 2015), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 23 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in people with haematological disorders (receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy or undergoing HSCT) that compared different thresholds for administration of prophylactic platelet transfusions (low trigger (5 x 10(9)/L); standard trigger (10 x 10(9)/L); higher trigger (20 x 10(9)/L, 30 x 10(9)/L, 50 x 10(9)/L); or alternative platelet trigger (for example platelet mass)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Three trials met our predefined inclusion criteria and were included for analysis in the review (499 participants). All three trials compared a standard trigger (10 x 10(9)/L) versus a higher trigger (20 x 10(9)/L or 30 x 10(9)/L). None of the trials compared a low trigger versus a standard trigger or an alternative platelet trigger. The trials were conducted between 1991 and 2001 and enrolled participants from fairly comparable patient populations.The original review contained four trials (658 participants); in the previous update of this review we excluded one trial (159 participants) because fewer than 80% of participants had a haematological disorder. We identified no new trials in this update of the review.Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. None of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, and all the included studies had some threats to validity.Three studies reported the number of participants with at least one clinically significant bleeding episode within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no evidence of a difference in the number of participants with a clinically significant bleeding episode between the standard and higher trigger groups (three studies; 499 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.90; low-quality evidence).One study reported the number of days with a clinically significant bleeding event (adjusted for repeated measures). There was no evidence of a difference in the number of days of bleeding per participant between the standard and higher trigger groups (one study; 255 participants; relative proportion of days with World Health Organization Grade 2 or worse bleeding (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.48, P = 0.162; authors' own results; low-quality evidence).Two studies reported the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding. There was no evidence of any difference in the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding between a standard trigger level and a higher trigger level (two studies; 421 participants; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.88; low-quality evidence).Only one study reported the time to first bleeding episode. There was no evidence of any difference in the time to the first bleeding episode between a standard trigger level and a higher trigger level (one study; 255 participants; hazard ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.91; low-quality evidence).Only one study reported on all-cause mortality within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no evidence of any difference in all-cause mortality between standard and higher trigger groups (one study; 255 participants; RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.83 to 3.81; low-quality evidence).Three studies reported on the number of platelet transfusions per participant. Two studies reported on the mean number of platelet transfusions per participant. There was a significant reduction in the number of platelet transfusions per participant in the standard trigger group (two studies, mean difference -2.09, 95% CI -3.20 to -0.99; low-quality evidence).One study reported on the number of transfusion reactions. There was no evidence to demonstrate any difference in transfusion reactions between the standard and higher trigger groups (one study; 79 participants; RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.09).None of the studies reported on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people with haematological disorders who are thrombocytopenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT, we found low-quality evidence that a standard trigger level (10 x 10(9)/L) is associated with no increase in the risk of bleeding when compared to a higher trigger level (20 x 10(9)/L or 30 x 10(9)/L). There was low-quality evidence that a standard trigger level is associated with a decreased number of transfusion episodes when compared to a higher trigger level (20 x 10(9)/L or 30 x 10(9)/L).Findings from this review were based on three studies and 499 participants. Without further evidence, it is reasonable to continue with the current practice of administering prophylactic platelet transfusions using the standard trigger level (10 x 10(9)/L) in the absence of other risk factors for bleeding.

Different doses of prophylactic platelet transfusion for preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders after myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic due to bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004, and updated in 2012 that addressed four separate questions: prophylactic versus therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy; prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold; prophylactic platelet transfusion dose; and platelet transfusions compared to alternative treatments. This review has now been split into four smaller reviews; this review compares different platelet transfusion doses.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether different doses of prophylactic platelet transfusions (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding) affect their efficacy and safety in preventing bleeding in people with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy with or without haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 23 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in people with malignant haematological disorders or undergoing HSCT that compared different platelet component doses (low dose 1.1 x 10(11)/m(2) ± 25%, standard dose 2.2 x 10(11)/m(2) ± 25%, high dose 4.4 x 10(11)/m(2) ± 25%).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials (1814 participants) in this review; six were conducted during one course of treatment (chemotherapy or HSCT).Overall the methodological quality of studies was low to moderate across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. None of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, and all the included studies had some threats to validity.Five studies reported the number of participants with at least one clinically significant bleeding episode within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no difference in the number of participants with a clinically significant bleeding episode between the low-dose and standard-dose groups (four studies; 1170 participants; risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.13; moderate-quality evidence); low-dose and high-dose groups (one study; 849 participants; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11; moderate-quality evidence); or high-dose and standard-dose groups (two studies; 951 participants; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11; moderate-quality evidence).Three studies reported the number of days with a clinically significant bleeding event per participant. There was no difference in the number of days of bleeding per participant between the low-dose and standard-dose groups (two studies; 230 participants; mean difference -0.17, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.17; low quality evidence). One study (855 participants) showed no difference in the number of days of bleeding per participant between high-dose and standard-dose groups, or between low-dose and high-dose groups (849 participants).Three studies reported the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding. There was no difference in the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding between a low-dose and a standard-dose platelet transfusion policy (three studies; 1059 participants; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.92; low-quality evidence); low-dose and high-dose groups (one study; 849 participants; RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.77; low-quality evidence); or high-dose and standard-dose groups (one study; 855 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.68; low-quality evidence).Two studies reported the time to first bleeding episodes; we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Both studies (959 participants) individually found that the time to first bleeding episode was either the same, or longer, in the low-dose group compared to the standard-dose group. One study (855 participants) found that the time to the first bleeding episode was the same in the high-dose group compared to the standard-dose group.Three studies reported all-cause mortality within 30 days from the start of the study. There was no difference in all-cause mortality between treatment arms (low-dose versus standard-dose: three studies; 1070 participants; RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.70 to 5.93; low-quality evidence; low-dose versus high-dose: one study; 849 participants; RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.54; low-quality evidence; and high-dose versus standard-dose: one study; 855 participants; RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.81; low-quality evidence).Six studies reported the number of platelet transfusions; we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Two studies (959 participants) out of three (1070 participants) found that a low-dose transfusion strategy led to more transfusion episodes than a standard-dose. One study (849 participants) found that a low-dose transfusion strategy led to more transfusion episodes than a high-dose strategy. One study (855 participants) out of three (1007 participants) found no difference in the number of platelet transfusions between the high-dose and standard-dose groups.One study reported on transfusion reactions. This study's authors suggested that a high-dose platelet transfusion strategy may lead to a higher rate of transfusion-related adverse events.None of the studies reported quality-of-life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In haematology patients who are thrombocytopenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT, we found no evidence to suggest that a low-dose platelet transfusion policy is associated with an increased bleeding risk compared to a standard-dose or high-dose policy, or that a high-dose platelet transfusion policy is associated with a decreased risk of bleeding when compared to a standard-dose policy.A low-dose platelet transfusion strategy leads to an increased number of transfusion episodes compared to a standard-dose strategy. A high-dose platelet transfusion strategy does not decrease the number of transfusion episodes per participant compared to a standard-dose regimen, and it may increase the number of transfusion-related adverse events.Findings from this review would suggest a change from current practice, with low-dose platelet transfusions used for people receiving in-patient treatment for their haematological disorder and high-dose platelet transfusion strategies not being used routinely.

A therapeutic-only versus prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy for preventing bleeding in patients with haematological disorders after myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in thrombocytopenic patients with bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004 and updated in 2012 that addressed four separate questions: therapeutic-only versus prophylactic platelet transfusion policy; prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold; prophylactic platelet transfusion dose; and platelet transfusions compared to alternative treatments. We have now split this review into four smaller reviews looking at these questions individually; this review is the first part of the original review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy (platelet transfusions given when patient bleeds) is as effective and safe as a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding, usually when the platelet count falls below a given trigger level) in patients with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950) and ongoing trial databases to 23 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent or treat bleeding in patients with malignant haematological disorders receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy or undergoing HSCT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven RCTs that compared therapeutic platelet transfusions to prophylactic platelet transfusions in haematology patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT. One trial is still ongoing, leaving six trials eligible with a total of 1195 participants. These trials were conducted between 1978 and 2013 and enrolled participants from fairly comparable patient populations. We were able to critically appraise five of these studies, which contained separate data for each arm, and were unable to perform quantitative analysis on one study that did not report the numbers of participants in each treatment arm.Overall the quality of evidence per outcome was low to moderate according to the GRADE approach. None of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, and all the studies identified had some threats to validity. We deemed only one study to be at low risk of bias in all domains other than blinding.Two RCTs (801 participants) reported at least one bleeding episode within 30 days of the start of the study. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis due to considerable statistical heterogeneity between studies. The statistical heterogeneity seen may relate to the different methods used in studies for the assessment and grading of bleeding. The underlying patient diagnostic and treatment categories also appeared to have some effect on bleeding risk. Individually these studies showed a similar effect, that a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion strategy was associated with an increased risk of clinically significant bleeding compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy. Number of days with a clinically significant bleeding event per participant was higher in the therapeutic-only group than in the prophylactic group (one RCT; 600 participants; mean difference 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.90; moderate-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference in the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding between a therapeutic-only transfusion policy and a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (two RCTs; 801 participants; risk ratio (RR) 4.91, 95% CI 0.86 to 28.12; low-quality evidence). Two RCTs (801 participants) reported time to first bleeding episode. As there was considerable heterogeneity between the studies, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Both studies individually found that time to first bleeding episode was shorter in the therapeutic-only group compared with the prophylactic platelet transfusion group.There was insufficient evidence to determine any difference in all-cause mortality within 30 days of the start of the study using a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (two RCTs; 629 participants). Mortality was a rare event, and therefore larger studies would be needed to establish the effect of these alternative strategies. There was a clear reduction in the number of platelet transfusions per participant in the therapeutic-only arm (two RCTs, 991 participants; standardised mean reduction of 0.50 platelet transfusions per participant, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.37; moderate-quality evidence). None of the studies reported quality of life. There was no evidence of any difference in the frequency of adverse events, such as transfusion reactions, between a therapeutic-only and prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (two RCTs; 991 participants; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.68), although the confidence intervals were wide.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found low- to moderate-grade evidence that a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy is associated with increased risk of bleeding when compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy in haematology patients who are thrombocytopenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT. There is insufficient evidence to determine any difference in mortality rates and no evidence of any difference in adverse events between a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy and a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy. A therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy is associated with a clear reduction in the number of platelet components administered.

Plasma transfusions prior to insertion of central lines for patients with abnormal coagulation

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the effect of different prophylactic plasma transfusion regimens prior to central line insertion in patients with abnormal coagulation.

Prophylactic plasma and platelet transfusion in the critically Ill patient: just useless and expensive or even harmful?

It is still common practice to correct abnormal standard laboratory test results, such as increased INR or low platelet count, prior to invasive interventions, such as tracheostomy, central venous catheter insertion or liver biopsy, in critically ill patients. Data suggest that 30-90 % of plasma transfused for these indications is unnecessary and puts the patient at risk. Plasma transfusion is associated with a high risk of transfusion-associated adverse events such as transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO), transfusion-related lung injury (TRALI), transfusion-related immunomodulation (TRIM), and anaphylaxis/allergic reactions. Therefore, the avoidance of inappropriate plasma transfusion bears a high potential of improving patient outcomes. The prospective study by Durila et al., published recently in BMC Anesthesiology, provides evidence that tracheostomies can be performed without prophylactic plasma transfusion and bleeding complications in critically ill patients despite increased INR in case of normal thromboelastometry (ROTEM) results. Thromboelastometry-based restrictive transfusion management helped avoid unnecessary plasma and platelet transfusion, and should reduce the incidence of transfusion-related adverse events and transfusion-associated hospital costs. Therefore, the authors believe that thromboelastometry-based strategies should be implemented to optimize patient blood management in perioperative medicine.

Do children without a known bleeding tendency undergoing PICC placement require coagulation laboratory testing?

BACKGROUND

Obtaining basic hemostatic laboratory investigations prior to peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) insertion remains controversial, even if the procedure is converted to a tunneled central venous line (CVL) placement.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the value of pre-procedural blood screening (hemoglobin level, platelet count, aPTT/INR) in hospitalized children without a known bleeding diathesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective review included pediatric patients undergoing PICC insertion who had both laboratory screening and post-PICC hemoglobin level. Two cohorts (A: 0-3 months; B: >3 months-18 years) were analyzed for procedural major/minor bleeding.

RESULTS

Of 1,441 consecutive children identified during a 3-year period, 832 patients (226 in cohort A, 606 in cohort B) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Overall, 36% (300/832) of the patients had at least one abnormal laboratory result. Only 0.2% (3/1,441) of patients required conversion to a central venous line. In cohort A no major bleeding occurred; the minor bleeding frequency was 30% (68/226). Neither abnormal laboratory results nor correction of abnormal laboratory results was associated with minor bleeding complications. The positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV) of having abnormal laboratory screening were 0.22 and 0.68, respectively. In cohort B the major bleeding frequency was 1% (6/606) but no patient required any blood transfusion; minor bleeding occurred in 29% (174/606). Neither abnormal laboratory results nor correction of abnormal laboratory results was associated with minor bleeding complications. The PPV and NPV of abnormal laboratory screening results were 0.24 and 0.72, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Pre-procedural blood screening did not predict bleeding in hospitalized children without a known bleeding diathesis undergoing PICC insertion. The rarity of major bleeding complications and need for conversion to a central venous line did not support a need for laboratory screening.

The safety of ultrasound guided central venous cannulation in patients with liver disease

Background:

Central venous cannulation (CVC) is frequently required during the management of patients with liver disease with deranged conventional coagulation parameters (CCP). Since CVC is known to be associated with vascular complications, it is standard practice to transfuse Fresh-Frozen Plasma or platelets to correct CCP. These CCP may not reflect true coagulopathy in liver disease. Additionally CVC when performed under ultrasound guidance (USG-CVC) in itself reduces the incidence of complications.

Aim:

To assess the safety of USG-CVC and to evaluate the incidence of complications among liver disease patients with coagulopathy.

Setting and Design:

An audit of all USG-CVCs was performed among adult patients with liver disease in a tertiary care center.

Materials and Methods:

Data was collected for all the adult patients (18-60 years) of either gender suffering from liver disease who had required USG-CVC. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis was done to identify possible risk factors for complications.

Results:

The mean age of the patients was 42.1 ± 11.6 years. Mean international normalized ratio was 2.17 ± 1.16 whereas median platelet count was 149.5 (range, 12-683) × 10⁹/L. No major vascular or non-vascular complications were recorded in our patients. Overall incidence of minor vascular complications was 18.6%, of which 13% had significant ooze, 10.3% had hematoma formation and 4.7% had both hematoma and ooze. Arterial puncture and multiple attempts were independent risk factors for superficial hematoma formation whereas low platelet count and presence of ascites were independent risk factors for significant oozing.

Conclusion:

Ultrasound guidance -CVC in liver disease patients with deranged coagulation is a safe and highly successful modality.

Periprocedural management of antithrombotic therapy in hospitalized patients

The management of antithrombotic medications in patients requiring invasive procedures is a common problem in hospital medicine, for which there is limited evidence to guide clinical decision making. Existing guidelines do not address many hospital-based procedures and have not kept pace with the introduction of newer antiplatelet and anticoagulant medications. This article provides a conceptual framework for the periprocedural management of antithrombotic therapy, with a focus on the procedures that hospitalists are most likely to perform and the pharmacology of the common and newer antithrombotic medications.

Predictors of unattempted central venous catheterization in septic patients eligible for early goal-directed therapy

INTRODUCTION

Central venous catheterization (CVC) can be an important component of the management of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. CVC, however, is a time- and resource-intensive procedure associated with serious complications. The effects of the absence of shock or the presence of relative contraindications on undertaking central line placement in septic emergency department (ED) patients eligible for early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) have not been well described. We sought to determine the association of relative normotension (sustained systolic blood pressure >90 mmHg independent of or in response to an initial crystalloid resuscitation of 20 mL/kg), obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥30), moderate thrombocytopenia (platelet count <50,000 per μL), and coagulopathy (international normalized ratio ≥2.0) with unattempted CVC in EGDT-eligible patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 421 adults who met EGDT criteria in 5 community EDs over a period of 13 months. We compared patients with attempted thoracic (internal jugular or subclavian) CVC with those who did not undergo an attempted thoracic line. We also compared patients with any attempted CVC (either thoracic or femoral) with those who did not undergo any attempted central line. We used multivariate logistic regression analysis to calculate adjusted odd ratios (AORs).

RESULTS

In our study, 364 (86.5%) patients underwent attempted thoracic CVC and 57 (13.5%) did not. Relative normotension was significantly associated with unattempted thoracic CVC (AOR 2.6 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-4.3), as were moderate thrombocytopenia (AOR 3.9; 95% CI, 1.5-10.1) and coagulopathy (AOR 2.7; 95% CI, 1.3-5.6). When assessing for attempted catheterization of any central venous site (thoracic or femoral), 382 (90.7%) patients underwent attempted catheterization and 39 (9.3%) patients did not. Relative normotension (AOR 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.5) and moderate thrombocytopenia (AOR 3.9; 95% CI, 1.5-10.3) were significantly associated with unattempted CVC, whereas coagulopathy was not (AOR 0.6; 95% CI, 0.2-1.8). Obesity was not significantly associated with unattempted CVC, either thoracic in location or at any site.

CONCLUSION

Septic patients eligible for EGDT with relative normotension and those with moderate thrombocytopenia were less likely to undergo attempted CVC at any site. Those with coagulopathy were also less likely to undergo attempted thoracic central line placement. Knowledge of the decision-making calculus at play for physicians considering central venous catheterization in this population can help inform physician education and performance improvement programs.

Prophylactic platelet transfusion for prevention of bleeding in patients with haematological disorders after chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in thrombocytopenic patients with bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the most effective use of platelet transfusion for the prevention of bleeding in patients with haematological disorders undergoing chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 4, 2011), MEDLINE (1950 to Nov 2011), EMBASE (1980 to Nov 2011) and CINAHL (1982 to Nov 2011), using adaptations of the Cochrane RCT search filter, the UKBTS/SRI Transfusion Evidence Library, and ongoing trial databases to 10 November 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent bleeding in patients with haematological disorders. Four different types of prophylactic platelet transfusion trial were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

In the original review one author initially screened all electronically derived citations and abstracts of papers, identified by the review search strategy, for relevancy. Two authors performed this task in the updated review. Two authors independently assessed the full text of all potentially relevant trials for eligibility. Two authors completed data extraction independently. We requested missing data from the original investigators as appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 18 trials that were eligible for inclusion, five of these were still ongoing.Thirteen completed published trials (2331 participants) were included for analysis in the review. The original review contained nine trials (718 participants). This updated review includes six new trials (1818 participants).Two trials (205 participants) in the original review are now excluded because fewer than 80% of participants had a haematological disorder.The four different types of prophylactic platelet transfusion trial, that were the focus of this review, were included within these thirteen trials.Three trials compared prophylactic platelet transfusions versus therapeutic-only platelet transfusions. There was no statistical difference between the number of participants with clinically significant bleeding in the therapeutic and prophylactic arms but the confidence interval was wide (RR 1.66; 95% CI 0.9 to 3.04).The time taken for a clinically significant bleed to occur was longer in the prophylactic platelet transfusion arm. There was a clear reduction in platelet transfusion usage in the therapeutic arm. There was no statistical difference between the number of participants in the therapeutic and prophylactic arms with platelet refractoriness, the only adverse event reported.Three trials compared different platelet count thresholds to trigger administration of prophylactic platelet transfusions. No statistical difference was seen in the number of participants with clinically significant bleeding (RR 1.35; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.9), however, this type of bleeding occurred on fewer days in the group of patients transfused at a higher platelet count threshold (RR 1.72; 95% CI 1.33 to 2.22).The lack of a difference seen for the number of participants with clinically significant bleeding may be due to the studies, in combination, having insufficient power to demonstrate a difference, or due to masking of the effect by a higher number of protocol violations in the groups of patients with a lower platelet count threshold. Using a lower platelet count threshold led to a significant reduction in the number of platelet transfusions used. There were no statistical differences in the number of adverse events reported between the two groups.Six trials compared different doses of prophylactic platelet transfusions. There was no evidence to suggest that using a lower platelet transfusion dose increased: the number of participants with clinically significant (WHO grade 2 or above) (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11), or life-threatening (WHO grade 4) bleeding (RR 1.87; 95% CI 0.86 to 4.08). A higher platelet transfusion dose led to a reduction in the number of platelet transfusion episodes, but an increase in total platelet utilisation. Only one adverse event, wheezing after transfusion, had a significantly higher incidence when standard and high dose transfusions were compared but this difference was not seen when low dose and high dose transfusions were compared. It is therefore likely to be a type I error (false positive).One small trial compared prophylactic platelet transfusions versus platelet-poor plasma. The risk of a significant bleed was decreased in the prophylactic platelet transfusion arm (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95) and this was statistically significant.All studies had threats to validity; the majority of these were due to methodology of the studies not being described in adequate detail.Although it was not the main focus of the review, it was interesting to note that in one of the pre-specified sub-group analyses (treatment type) two studies showed that patients receiving an autologous transplant have a lower risk of bleeding than patients receiving intensive chemotherapy or an allogeneic transplant (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.82).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

These conclusions refer to the four different types of platelet transfusion trial separately. Firstly, there is no evidence that a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy prevents bleeding. Two large trials comparing a therapeutic versus prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy, that have not yet been published, should provide important new data on this comparison. Secondly, there is no evidence, at the moment, to suggest a change from the current practice of using a platelet count of 10 x 10(9)/L. However, the evidence for a platelet count threshold of 10 x 10(9)/L being equivalent to 20 x 10(9)/L is not as definitive as it would first appear and further research is required. Thirdly, platelet dose does not affect the number of patients with significant bleeding, but whether it affects number of days each patient bleeds for is as yet undetermined. There is no evidence that platelet dose affects the incidence of WHO grade 4 bleeding.Prophylactic platelet transfusions were more effective than platelet-poor plasma at preventing bleeding.

Critical care issues in oncological surgery patients

As life expectancy increases and advances in cancer treatment more often convert deadly conditions into more chronic diseases, the surgical intensivist can expect to be faced with greater numbers of oncology patients undergoing aggressive surgical treatments for curative intent, prolonging survival, or primarily palliation by alleviating obstruction, infection, bleeding, or pain. Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) are a paradigm for the emerging field of multimodal aggressive oncological surgery. This article describes the CRS/HIPEC technique, and discusses the most common postoperative complications and critical care issues in these patients, including anastomotic leaks, intestinal perforation, abscesses, and intra-abdominal bleeding. The leading cause of mortality is sepsis leading to multiple organ failure, and such patients are at particularly higher risk due to the extensive CRS and HIPEC. The intensivist must be vigilant to ensure that source control is not overlooked. This process is a very difficult one, made even more challenging by the blunting of physiologic responses and the frequent absence of the classic acute abdomen.