Prophylactic platelet transfusions in children with acute leukemia: a dose response study

Platelet transfusion in adults: An update

Many patients worldwide receive platelet components (PCs) through the transfusion of diverse types of blood components. PC transfusions are essential for the treatment of central thrombocytopenia of diverse causes, and such treatment is beneficial in patients at risk of severe bleeding. PC transfusions account for almost 10% of all the blood components supplied by blood services, but they are associated with about 3.25 times as many severe reactions (attributable to transfusion) than red blood cell transfusions after stringent in-process leukoreduction to less than 10⁶ residual cells per blood component. PCs are not homogeneous, due to the considerable differences between donors. Furthermore, the modes of PC collection and preparation, the safety precautions taken to limit either the most common (allergic-type reactions and febrile non-hemolytic reactions) or the most severe (bacterial contamination, pulmonary lesions) adverse reactions, and storage and conservation methods can all result in so-called PC "storage lesions". Some storage lesions affect PC quality, with implications for patient outcome. Good transfusion practices should result in higher levels of platelet recovery and efficacy, and lower complication rates. These practices include a matching of tissue ABH antigens whenever possible, and of platelet HLA (and, to a lesser extent, HPA) antigens in immunization situations. This review provides an overview of all the available information relating to platelet transfusion, from donor and donation to bedside transfusion, and considers the impact of the measures applied to increase transfusion efficacy while improving safety and preventing transfusion inefficacy and refractoriness. It also considers alternatives to platelet component (PC) transfusion.

The appropriateness of platelet transfusions in hematological patients and the potential for improvement

BACKGROUND

Hematology patients are intensive platelet users. In clinical practice, a substantial proportion of platelet (PLT) transfusions are routinely administered outside the guidelines despite compelling evidence for recommendations. Those unnecessary PLT transfusions are an unjustified extra burden on a scarce healthcare resource and may also be detrimental to the patients. This study aims to evaluate indications and assess the appropriateness of PLT transfusion, as well as to identify common discrepancies and propose modalities for better compliance with guidelines.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The audit of all PLT orders for adult hematological inpatients was conducted over 2 months. The assessment was performed using guidelines for PLT transfusion. Patient demographic, clinical, and transfusion data were collected from hospital electronic medical records.

RESULTS

Based on 286 PLT orders, 344 PCs were transfused to 67 patients: 235 (82.2%) prophylactical due to low PLT count, 34 (11.9%) preprocedural and 17 (5.9%) therapeutic. Overall, 105 (36.77%) PLT transfusions were inappropriate: 78 (33.2%) of all prophylactic PLT transfusions due to low PLT count, 17 (50%) off all preprocedural and 10 (58.8%) of all therapeutical transfusion. The major reason for PLT transfusion inappropriateness was transfusion above the recommended threshold. Double units of PCs were transfused in 36.7% of all PLT transfusions and 32.4% of them were considered inappropriate.

CONCLUSION

Our audit of PLT transfusion practice found a large proportion of inappropriate PLT transfusions. Based on the most common deviations from the guidelines a variety of targeted measures for improvement are proposed.

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

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.

Platelet transfusion practice and platelet refractoriness for a cohort of pediatric oncology patients: A single-center study

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are an essential aspect of supportive care for pediatric oncology patients. Data regarding the frequency of transfusions, pretransfusion thresholds, posttransfusion increments, and rate of platelet transfusion refractoriness (PTR) are lacking.

STUDY OBJECTIVES

(a) describe platelet transfusion practice for children with malignancy; (b) determine the normal platelet increment following platelet transfusion; and (c) assess rate of PTR.

METHODS

Inpatient pediatric oncology patients <18 years old and treated between 2009 and 2013 were identified. Data collected retrospectively included patient demographics, clinical information, laboratory values, and transfusion details.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty-seven children were included and 144 (39%) received at least one platelet transfusion. Platelets were transfused during 25% of all inpatient admissions. The median number of platelet transfusion for any given inpatient admission was two (interquartile range [IQR]: 1-3). The median pretransfusion platelet count was 16 × 10⁹ /L and posttransfusion increment was 25 × 10⁹ /L. Most (79%) of the time, the pretransfusion platelet count was >10 × 10⁹ /L. Older children who received ABO incompatible platelet transfusions with a longer storage duration were more likely to have a poor platelet response (increment ≤ 10 × 10⁹ /L). The rate of PTR (immune and/or nonimmune) was low (8%; 11/144).

CONCLUSIONS

Practical information to parents and clinicians of newly diagnosed children regarding the likelihood and frequency of platelet transfusions was determined. The rate of PTR was low, supporting the hypothesis that children receiving leukoreduced products are at a low risk of PTR.

The use of antifibrinolytics in pediatric patients with hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia

Despite the use of evidence-based platelet transfusion therapy during periods of hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia, a large proportion of pediatric hematology/oncology patients continue to suffer from clinically significant bleeding. Antifibrinolytic (AF) drugs have been shown in certain surgical and trauma settings to decrease bleeding, blood transfusion, and improve survival. We conducted a retrospective assessment of the safety of using AF drugs in pediatric patients with hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia at our center as well as the impact on bleeding occurrence and severity.

Current Status of Platelet Transfusion in Pediatric Patients

Outside the neonatal period, most platelets that are transfused to pediatric patients are given to those who are thrombocytopenic secondary to malignancy and associated therapy and/or hematopoietic progenitor cell transplant, or to those with significant bleeding associated with surgery, especially cardiac surgery. Indications for platelet transfusion, doses, and other practices for children largely mimic adult platelet transfusion protocols because there are few pediatric-specific studies in this area. Pediatric platelet transfusion practices would benefit from focused pediatric research. The appropriate indications and doses for platelet transfusions in oncology, hematopoietic progenitor cell transplant, and cardiac surgery patients need to be determined.

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.

Platelet transfusion: a clinical practice guideline from the AABB

BACKGROUND

The AABB (formerly, the American Association of Blood Banks) developed this guideline on appropriate use of platelet transfusion in adult patients.

METHODS

These guidelines are based on a systematic review of randomized, clinical trials and observational studies (1900 to September 2014) that reported clinical outcomes on patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic platelet transfusions. An expert panel reviewed the data and developed recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.

RECOMMENDATION 1

The AABB recommends that platelets should be transfused prophylactically to reduce the risk for spontaneous bleeding in hospitalized adult patients with therapy-induced hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia. The AABB recommends transfusing hospitalized adult patients with a platelet count of 10 × 109 cells/L or less to reduce the risk for spontaneous bleeding. The AABB recommends transfusing up to a single apheresis unit or equivalent. Greater doses are not more effective, and lower doses equal to one half of a standard apheresis unit are equally effective. (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-quality evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 2

The AABB suggests prophylactic platelet transfusion for patients having elective central venous catheter placement with a platelet count less than 20 × 109 cells/L. (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 3

The AABB suggests prophylactic platelet transfusion for patients having elective diagnostic lumbar puncture with a platelet count less than 50 × 109 cells/L. (Grade: weak recommendation; very-low-quality evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 4

The AABB suggests prophylactic platelet transfusion for patients having major elective nonneuraxial surgery with a platelet count less than 50 × 109 cells/L. (Grade: weak recommendation; very-low-quality evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 5

The AABB recommends against routine prophylactic platelet transfusion for patients who are nonthrombocytopenic and have cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. The AABB suggests platelet transfusion for patients having bypass who exhibit perioperative bleeding with thrombocytopenia and/or evidence of platelet dysfunction. (Grade: weak recommendation; very-low-quality evidence).

RECOMMENDATION 6

The AABB cannot recommend for or against platelet transfusion for patients receiving antiplatelet therapy who have intracranial hemorrhage (traumatic or spontaneous). (Grade: uncertain recommendation; very-low-quality evidence).

Advancements in the treatment of pediatric acute leukemia and brain tumor - continuous efforts for 100% cure

Treatment outcomes of pediatric cancers have improved greatly with the development of improved treatment protocols, new drugs, and better supportive measures, resulting in overall survival rates greater than 70%. Survival rates are highest in acute lymphoblastic leukemia, reaching more than 90%, owing to risk-based treatment through multicenter clinical trials and protocols developed to prevent central nervous system relapse and testicular relapse in boys. New drugs including clofarabine and nelarabine are currently being evaluated in clinical trials, and other targeted agents are continuously being developed. Chimeric antigen receptor-modified T cells are now attracting interest for the treatment of recurrent or refractory disease. Stem cell transplantation is still the most effective treatment for pediatric acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, in order to reduce treatment-related death after stem cell transplantation, there is need for improved treatments. New drugs and targeted agents are also needed for improved outcome of AML. Surgery and radiation therapy have been the mainstay for brain tumor treatment. However, chemotherapy is becoming more important for patients who are not eligible for radiotherapy owing to age. Stem cell transplant as a means of high dose chemotherapy and stem cell rescue is a new treatment modality and is often repeated for improved survival. Drugs such as temozolomide are new chemotherapeutic options. In order to achieve 100% cure in children with pediatric cancer, every possible treatment modality and effort should be considered.

Thrombocytopenia and bleeding in pediatric oncology patients

Prophylactic platelet transfusions are the standard of care for patients with hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia after receiving chemotherapy or radiation for the treatment of malignancy, for BM replacement by leukemia or solid tumor, or in preparation for a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.1 During this time of thrombocytopenia, these patients may receive both prophylactic platelet transfusions, which are given to prevent potentially life-threatening bleeding when a patient's platelet count drops below a predetermined threshold, and therapeutic platelet transfusions, which are given to treat active or recurrent bleeding. In the 1950s, the invention of the plastic blood bag allowed for the production and storage of platelet concentrates,2 and in the 1960s, it was recognized that prophylactic platelet transfusions effectively reduced hemorrhagic death in patients with newly diagnosed leukemia.3,4 In 1962, Gaydos published the paper that is frequently credited with the inception of the 20 000/μL platelet transfusion threshold.5 Despite a half-century of experience with prophylactic platelet transfusions, there are still insufficient data to provide clinicians with evidence-based guidelines specific to pediatric oncology and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) patients.

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.

Bleeding risks are higher in children versus adults given prophylactic platelet transfusions for treatment-induced hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia

Age-group analyses were conducted of patients in the prophylactic platelet dose trial (PLADO), which evaluated the relation between platelet dose per transfusion and bleeding. Hospitalized patients with treatment-induced hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 platelet doses: 1.1 × 10(11), 2.2 × 10(11), or 4.4 × 10(11) platelets/m(2) per transfusion, given for morning counts of ≤ 10 000 platelets/μL. Daily hemostatic assessments were performed. The primary end point (percentage of patients who developed grade 2 or higher World Health Organization bleeding) was evaluated in 198 children (0-18 years) and 1044 adults. Although platelet dose did not predict bleeding for any age group, children overall had a significantly higher risk of grade 2 or higher bleeding than adults (86%, 88%, 77% vs 67% of patients aged 0-5 years, 6-12 years, 13-18 years, vs adults, respectively) and more days with grade 2 or higher bleeding (median, 3 days in each pediatric group vs 1 day in adults; P < .001). The effect of age on bleeding differed by disease treatment category and was most pronounced among autologous transplant recipients. Pediatric subjects were at higher risk of bleeding over a wide range of platelet counts, indicating that their excess bleeding risk may be because of factors other than platelet counts.

Platelet dose for prophylactic platelet transfusions

Although guidelines exist to deal with some aspects of platelet transfusion practice, many important clinical issues have not been addressed in large randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Slichter et al. conducted a RCT of prophylactic platelet transfusions to determine the effects of the dose of platelets on clinical signs of bleeding, the use of platelet and red cell transfusions, changes in the recipient's post-transfusion platelet count, days to next transfusion and adverse events (Effects of Prophylactic Platelet Dose on Transfusion Outcomes [PLADO] trial). The primary end point of the study (i.e., the percentage of patients in each group with at least one episode of bleeding of grade 2 or higher according to the WHO criteria) was not significantly different (71, 69 and 70% of patients in the low-, medium- and high-dose group, respectively). According to these data, one can conclude that the dose of platelets transfused has no significant effect on the incidence of bleeding in patients with hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia and platelet counts no greater than 10 × 10⁹/l.

Current practice and future directions for optimization of platelet transfusions in patients with severe therapy-induced cytopenia

Platelet transfusions are mainly used for patients with thrombocytopenia due to bone marrow failure, especially cancer patients developing severe chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (e.g. patients with acute leukemia or other hematologic malignancies). A prophylactic transfusion strategy is now generally accepted in developed countries. Some clinical data, however, support the use of a therapeutic transfusion strategy at least for certain subsets of these patients. Several methodological approaches can then be used to evaluate the outcome of platelet transfusions, including peripheral blood platelet increments and bleeding assessments. Several factors will influence the efficiency of platelet transfusions; fever and ongoing hemorrhage are among the most important patient-dependent factors, but the number and quality of the transfused platelets are also important. The quality of transfused platelets can be evaluated by analyzing platelet activation, metabolism or senescence/apoptosis. Only evaluation of metabolism is included in international guidelines, but high-throughput methods for evaluation of activation and senescence/apoptosis are available and should be incorporated into routine clinical practice if future studies demonstrate that they reflect clinically relevant platelet characteristics. Finally, platelet transfusions have additional biological effects that may cause immunomodulation or altered angioregulation; at present it is not known whether these effects will influence the long-time prognosis of cancer patients. Thus, several questions with regard to the optimal use of platelet transfusions in cancer patients still need to be answered.

Thrombocytopenia and platelet transfusions in patients with cancer

Platelet transfusions are a critical component of the supportive care for patients receiving intensive therapy for hematologic malignancies. The platelet count "triggering" prophylactic transfusion has decreased over the years, and studies comparing a prophylactic versus a therapeutic transfusion approach are in progress. The evidence supporting the need for platelet transfusions prior to different invasive procedures is reviewed. Lastly, studies evaluating the use of thrombopoietic stimulating agents to reduce hemorrhage and decrease the need for platelet transfusions are discussed. To date, there is no evidence that this approach is of clinical utility.

Platelet Transfusion Therapy

This article provides guidelines for the appropriate use of platelet transfusions to reduce unnecessary transfusions, thereby avoiding transfusion-related risks to the patients and the costs of platelet therapy. Platelet products available for transfusion are whole blood derived platelet concentrates and apheresis platelets. Leukoreduced platelets can be used to reduce platelet alloimmunization, cytomegalovirus transmission, and febrile transfusion reactions, while gamma irradiation prevents transfusion-associated graftversus-host disease. Other topics discussed are the expected response to transfused platelets and reasons for poor responses related to alloimmunization, underlying disease state, clinical conditions, and drugs. Appropriate transfusion guidelines based on pretransfusion platelet count, platelet dose, and whether the transfusion is prophylactic or therapeutic are outlined. Identification, prevention, and management of adverse consequences of platelet transfusions and platelet refractoriness are discussed.

Lower or higher doses for prophylactic platelet transfusions: results of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting data regarding the optimal platelet (PLT) dose to transfuse prophylactically to patients with thrombocytopenia. A meta-analysis has been performed to summarize the results of different randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

RCTs reported through December 2005 were retrieved; five of them met the criteria for meta-analysis. Weighted mean difference (WMD) of posttransfusion PLT count increment (x10(9)/L) and transfusion interval (days) and summary odds ratio (OR) of bleeding in higher PLT dose group (HDP) versus lower PLT dose group (LDP), according to the authors, were calculated across studies.

RESULTS

The use of HDP was associated with an increase in the transfusion interval (WMD, 1.04 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-1.19; p < 0.00001) when compared with the use of LDP. When the studies that guaranteed the ABO compatibility of the PLT transfusions were combined, the use of HDP was statistically associated with an increase in the posttransfusion PLT count increment when compared with the LDP group (WMD, 23.6 x 10(9)/L; 95% CI, 18.28 x 10(9) to 28.92 x 10(9)/L; p < 0.00001). When bleeding was studied, data were available in only three studies and the hypothesis of homogeneity was rejected, in 4 of 10 subgroups analyses.

CONCLUSION

Few RCTs have addressed the issue of PLT dose for transfusion. It is shown that the transfusion of higher doses of PLTs is statistically associated with an increase in the transfusion interval and in the posttransfusion PLT count increment. A well-designed study of enough power is essential to establish the most effective and efficient dose for prophylactic PLT transfusions.

Guidelines for the transfusion of platelets

Recommendations aiming at standardising and rationalising clinical indications for the transfusion of platelets in Belgium were drawn up by a working group of the Superior Health Council. To this end the Superior Health Council organised an expert meeting devoted to "Guidelines for the transfusion of platelets" in collaboration with the Belgian Hematological Society. The experts discussed the indications for platelet transfusions, the ideal platelet concentrate and the optimal platelet transfusion therapy. The recommendations prepared by the experts were validated by the working group with the purpose of harmonising platelet transfusion in Belgian hospitals.

Immature platelet fraction measurement: a future guide to platelet transfusion requirement after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation

summary. The decision to prophylactically transfuse platelets is dependent on the platelet count, careful regular clinical assessment and agreed local protocol. The ability to predict when platelet recovery will occur should allow a more reasoned approach to platelet transfusion. An increase in reticulated platelets demonstrates impending platelet recovery. A new rapid automated method to assess reticulated platelets, the immature platelet fraction (IPF), is described, and its clinical utility assessed. The IPF is identified by flow cytometry with the use of a nucleic acid specific dye in the reticulocyte channel on the Sysmex XE-2100. Fifty healthy adult volunteers were used to establish the normal range. Patients where platelet marrow production or destruction might be abnormal were studied, and some patients followed serially during treatment. Thirty patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy were tested, and 13 of these patients followed serially. Fifteen patients post-autologous or allogeneic transplant were followed daily for platelet count and IPF percentage to monitor platelet recovery. The method demonstrates good reproducibility and stability. The recovery phase of thrombocytopenia in most chemotherapy and transplant patients was preceded by a rise in IPF percentage several days prior to platelet recovery. In particular, patients undergoing autologous transplantation (n = 8) using peripherally collected stem cells have a characteristic IPF percentage motif, with a rise one or two days prior to engraftment. The automated IPF is a useful parameter in the clinical evaluation of the thrombocytopenic patient and has the potential to allow optimal transfusion of platelet concentrates.

Platelet transfusion prophylaxis for patients with haematological malignancies: where to now?

National guidelines for platelet transfusion in many countries recommend that the general platelet transfusion trigger for prophylaxis is 10x10(9)/l. This annotation reviews the evidence for this threshold level and discusses other current unresolved issues relevant to platelet transfusion practice such as the optimal dose and the clinical benefit of a strategy for the prophylactic use of platelet transfusions when the platelet count falls below a given threshold.

Prophylactic platelet transfusion for haemorrhage 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 30 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the optimal use of platelet transfusion for the prevention of haemorrhage (prophylactic platelet transfusion) in patients with haematological malignancies undergoing chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were searched for in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Searching was also undertaken on the OVID versions of MEDLINE and EMBASE using an RCT search filter strategy.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials involving transfusions of platelet concentrates, prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given prophylactically to prevent bleeding in patients with haematological malignancies and receiving treatment with chemotherapy and/or stem cell transplantation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All electronically derived citations and abstracts of papers identified by the review search strategy were initially screened for relevancy by one reviewer. Studies clearly irrelevant were excluded at this stage. The full text of all potentially relevant trials was then formally assessed for eligibility by two reviewers independently. Two reviewers completed data extraction independently. Missing data were requested from the original investigators, as appropriate. Disagreements were resolved by discussion with the other reviewers.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight completed published trials, with a total of 390 participants in the intervention groups and 362 participants in the control groups, were included in the review for further analysis. The eight studies were classified as: * three trials relevant to prophylactic platelet transfusions versus therapeutic platelet transfusions; * three trials relevant to prophylactic platelet transfusion with one trigger level versus prophylactic platelet transfusion with another trigger level; * two trials relevant to prophylactic platelet transfusion with one dose schedule versus prophylactic platelet transfusion with another dose schedule. The few reports of controlled trials addressing prophylactic versus therapeutic transfusions contained small numbers of patients and were all undertaken over 25 years ago. None of these three studies explicitly clarified whether the lack of a reported difference was a reflection of insufficient power in the trials. The findings of the meta-analyses for this group of three small studies must be interpreted with caution. In contrast, more contemporary trials addressed the question of what platelet count thresholds should apply for prophylactic transfusion; three identified studies broadly compared platelet transfusion thresholds of 10 versus 20 x 109/litre for different clinical groups of patients. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regards to mortality, remission rates, number of participants with severe bleeding events or red cell transfusion requirements. However, it was unclear whether the studies had sufficient power to demonstrate in combination non-inferiority in terms of safety of the lower threshold, 10 x 109/litre. Insufficient randomised trials have been undertaken to make clinically relevant conclusions about the effect of different platelet doses.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There are no reasons to change current practice but uncertainty about the practice of prophylactic transfusion therapy should be recognised, particularly in the light of concerns about the scenario that blood products, including platelets, could become an increasingly scarce resource in the future and for which adequate alternatives do not exist. Consideration should be given to developing adequately powered trials comparing strategies of prophylaxis versus therapeutic platelet transfusion.

Triggers for prophylactic use of platelet transfusions and optimal platelet dosing in thrombocytopenic dogs and cats

Prophylactic platelet transfusions are frequently given to human patients with hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia. For several decades, the most common transfusion trigger was 20,000/microL, but the trend is now to use 10,000/microL in the absence of other risk factors for bleeding. This trigger seems to reduce the number of transfusions without increasing the risk of severe bleeding. Most studies involved in establishing platelet transfusion policies have involved patients with acute leukemia, with fewer studies involving patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation or aggressive chemotherapy for other cancers and patients with aplastic anemia. In the presence of other risk factors for spontaneous bleeding, 20,000/microL is still considered an appropriate trigger. The trigger for prophylactic transfusion before surgery has not undergone the same recent scrutiny as has the trigger for spontaneous bleeding. The recommendation remains to raise the platelet count to 50,000 to 100,000/microL if possible, although it is recognized that surgery and other invasive procedures have been performed at lower platelet counts without major bleeding. Prophylactic transfusion is not used in disorders of platelet consumption and destruction to prevent spontaneous bleeding but is used before surgery. Because of the comparative lack of experience with platelet transfusion in veterinary medicine, it is difficult to make generalizations for dogs and cats. Using the guidelines established for therapeutic and prophylactic transfusion of human patients is a reasonable starting point, however. A therapeutic transfusion policy is suggested in the veterinary setting provided that the patient can be closely observed for critical bleeding and a prompt transfusion can be given. This policy should ultimately reduce the overall number of platelet transfusions given to hospital patients. If an animal cannot be closely observed or the ability to transfuse on demand is limited, prophylactic transfusion is recommended. The triggers for initiating a platelet transfusion in dogs are extrapolated from human data; these values are lower by 50% for cats. Because of the imprecision of platelet counting at low values, platelet counts must always be interpreted in conjunction with clinical signs of hemorrhage. If platelet-rich plasma or platelet concentrate is available, a dose of 1 platelet unit per 10 kg is recommended, although resources may dictate a smaller dose. This will raise the recipient platelet count by a maximum of about 40,000/microL. Assuming a trigger of 10,000/microL, a transfusion will probably be required approximately every 3 days. It must be remembered that the frequency of platelet transfusions may be greater in the presence of factors accelerating platelet loss or destruction. If fresh whole blood is used, a rule of thumb is to transfuse 10 mL/kg, which will raise the recipient platelet count by a maximum of approximately 10,000/microL. Daily transfusions or transfusions every other day will probably be required.

Prophylactic platelet transfusions: which dose is the best dose? A review of the literature

Routine platelet transfusions for patients with acute leukemia were introduced in the early 1960s, and since then platelet use has increased steadily. Despite widespread use, good clinical evidence supporting prophylactic platelet transfusions is limited, and there are very few studies that have examined the dose for prophylactic platelet transfusions. Review of the platelet dose used in both early studies of routine platelet transfusions and more recent clinical trials of platelet transfusions shows wide variation in dosing, which is also reflected in clinical practice. As such, only limited recommendations for platelet dose have been forthcoming from consensus conferences or guidelines. The results from 3 recent clinical trials and a mathematical model examining the dose for prophylactic platelet transfusions suggest that lower dose transfusions may decrease the total number of platelets transfused; however, no definitive conclusions about the optimal platelet dose can be reached as these trials were not designed to evaluate bleeding outcomes or total platelet utilization. Future large clinical trials of platelet dose, which examine these critical outcomes, are required. Only with these results can the optimal platelet dose be determined.

Platelet dosing

Many patients with thrombocytopenia require transfusion of platelet concentrates, and numerous factors may influence the observed response to transfusion. One factor gaining growing recognition in recent years is the consideration of the dose of platelets to administer. Review of the available data regarding the effect of platelet dose on transfusion outcome is presented in this summary, with attention to those situations that seem to require higher platelet doses. Appropriate dosing may not only improve the immediate response to transfusion, but also lead to a decrease in further platelet transfusion requirements. Recommendations supported by actual clinical data are outlined, but controlled studies are needed to determine optimum platelet doses for many common clinical situations.

Platelet therapy

Thrombocytopenia is a major cause of bleeding episodes at all ages. The pathophysiology, causes of thrombocytopenia and clinical presentation have been reviewed briefly. However the emphasis has been laid on various aspects of platelet support such as indications and amount of platelet support essential for management of bleeding episodes with the help of platelet concentrates, single donor platelets. Strategies for management of platelet transfusion refractoriness has also been included for effective management of bleeding episodes in these conditions.

What is the proper threshold for platelet transfusion in patients with chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia?

Platelet transfusion therapy is an integral part of modern oncological practice and is used to treat hemorrhage associated with thrombocytopenia. More commonly, platelets are transfused to prevent hemorrhage in thrombocytopenic patients. Conventional wisdom has suggested a threshold for prophylactic transfusion of <20x10(9)/l. Many studies now support the safety of more conservative transfusion regimes that reduce patient exposure to donors and conserve precious resources, without an increase in risk of hemorrhage. This review presents the data to support the use of a prophylactic transfusion threshold of <10x10(9)/l in patients without risk factors for hemorrhage and who have ready access to emergent medical care.

Economic consequences of alterations in platelet transfusion dose: analysis of a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

In recent years, decreasing financial resources led to the use of lower-dose platelet components. However, the economic consequences of the use of such components have not been carefully studied.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A formal economic analysis was conducted of a recently reported, prospective, randomized, double-blind study examining the platelet dose-response relationship in nonrefractory patients. The economic analysis used a decision analysis model, conducted from the hospital's perspective and based directly on the observed clinical data and on institutional cost structures.

RESULTS

The decision analysis model estimated that a 38-percent reduction in mean platelet dose, within the commonly prescribed dose range, would result in the average patient's requiring approximately 60 percent more transfusions in the posttransplant period (8 vs. 5; p = 0.05), which would result in an estimated 60-percent increase in the median cost to the hospital ($4486/patient vs. $2804/patient [in 1996 US dollars], p = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Efforts to decrease costs by utilizing lower-dose single-donor platelet transfusions are predicted to result in a disproportionate increase in the number of transfusions per patient, with a corresponding increase in overall hospital transfusion costs.

Clinical consequences of alterations in platelet transfusion dose: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

The dose-response relationship for platelet transfusion has become increasingly important as the use of platelet transfusion has grown.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

One hundred fifty-eight prophylactic apheresis platelet transfusions were administered to 46 patients undergoing high-dose therapy followed by hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multiple-crossover study. Transfusions were administered in pairs, differing only in platelet content. Each pair consisted of a lower-dose platelet component (LDP) and a higher-dose platelet component (HDP) administered in random order to the same patient. LDPs contained a mean of 3.1 x 10(11) platelets (range, 2.3-3.5 x 10(11)), and HDPs contained a mean of 5.0 x 10(11) platelets (range, 4.5-6.1 x 10(11)). Patients with active bleeding and those who were refractory to platelet transfusions were excluded.

RESULTS

The mean posttransfusion platelet count increment with LDP was 17,010 per microL, and that with HDP was 31,057 per microL (p<0.0001). Only 37 percent of LDPs resulted in platelet count increments of at least 20,000 per microL, whereas 81 percent of HDPs resulted in increments above this level (p<0.0001). The mean transfusion-free interval with LDP was 2.16 days, whereas that with HDP was 3.03 days (p<0.01). Administration of LDPs was associated with a 39 to 82 percent increase in the relative risk (per day) of requiring subsequent platelet transfusions (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

As compared to the administration of HDPs, the administration of LDPs for prophylactic transfusion in hematopoietic progenitor cell transplant patients results in a lower platelet count increment, a lower likelihood of obtaining a posttransfusion platelet increment >20,000 per microL, a shorter transfusion-free interval, and a greater relative risk per day of requiring additional transfusions.

Fibrinogen-coated albumin microcapsules reduce bleeding in severely thrombocytopenic rabbits

Severe thrombocytopenia frequently occurs in patients receiving chemotherapy and in patients with autoimmune disorders. Thrombocytopenia is associated with bleeding, which may be serious and life threatening. Current treatment strategies for thrombocytopenia may require transfusion of allogeneic platelets, which is associated with serious drawbacks. These include the occurrence of anti-platelet antibodies, which may result in refractoriness to further platelet transfusions, and the potential risk of transfer of blood-borne diseases. Therefore, we have recently developed a platelet substitute product (Synthocytes), which is composed of human albumin microcapsules with fibrinogen immobilized on their surface. Here we show that the intravenous administration of these microcapsules not only corrects the prolonged bleeding time in rabbits rendered thrombocytopenic either by anti-platelet antibodies or by chemotherapy, but also reduces bleeding from surgical wounds inflicted in the abdominal skin and musculature. No potential systemic prothrombotic effect of the microcapsules was observed in a model of rabbit venous thrombosis. As for the mechanism of action, experiments with normal and thrombocytopenic human blood in an endothelial cell matrix-coated perfusion chamber demonstrated an interaction between the fibrinogen-coated albumin microcapsules and native platelets. It was shown that the fibrinogen-coated albumin microcapsules could facilitate platelet adhesion to endothelial cell matrix and correct the impaired formation of platelet aggregates in relatively platelet-poor blood. This study indicates that fibrinogen-coated albumin microcapsules can act to improve primary hemostasis under thrombocytopenic conditions and may eventually be a promising agent for prophylaxis and treatment of bleeding in patients with severe thrombocytopenia.