An update on platelet transfusion in hematooncology supportive care

Rehabilitation intervention safety in patients with malignant lymphoma with low blood cell counts

[Purpose] We established criteria for patients with malignant lymphoma with low blood counts, who did not meet the criteria to discontinue rehabilitation or the blood transfusion criteria even though they were borderline for discontinuing rehabilitation. We investigated physical symptoms, activities of daily living, and adverse events in patients who were permitted to undergo rehabilitation intervention using the new criteria. [Participants and Methods] Forty-two patients met the criteria to discontinue rehabilitation based on blood data, and the new-criteria group included 153 patients who received permission for rehabilitation from a hematologist despite not meeting the criteria to discontinue rehabilitation. The survey items were Barthel index at the time of admission and discharge and the length of hospital stay. A two-group comparison was performed, and the occurrence of adverse events associated with exercise intervention were investigated. [Results] The length of hospital stay was shortened in the new-criteria group, and the rehabilitation intervention rate improved. [Conclusion] For patients with malignant lymphoma with low blood cell counts, continuing rehabilitation intervention with physician permission may prevent a decline in activities of daily living as well as maintain and improve motor function.

Safety of rehabilitation interventions for patients with hematologic diseases associated with low blood counts-verification focusing on blood cancer

[Purpose] This study aimed to establish unique criteria for hematologic patients with low blood counts in the borderline region of or below the threshold for discontinuing cancer rehabilitation without meeting the criteria for blood transfusion, and to investigate the physical symptoms and activities of daily living. [Participants and Methods] Among the 251 participants, 128 had blood test results below the discontinuation criteria. They were permitted to engage in rehabilitation interventions by a hematologist based on the new criteria. The remaining 123 patients were classified under the discontinuation group. The Barthel Index scores during admission and discharge were compared between the two groups, in terms of chemotherapy, physical symptoms of nausea, petechial hemorrhage, pyrexia, and diarrhea. [Results] There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the Barthel Index score during admission or discharge. Pyrexia occurred more frequently in patients managed under the new criteria. [Conclusion] Patients with low blood counts that fall between the criteria for discontinuing rehabilitation and receiving blood transfusions can continue undergoing rehabilitation interventions with the permission of their doctors, provided that measures are taken to manage adverse events. This strategy prevents activities of daily living reduction.

Use of platelet components: An observational audit at a tertiary care centre

Background Platelets should be transfused appropriately, based on the cause of thrombocytopenia. The practice and policies of transfusion vary among institutions and even among clinical practitioners, leading to inappropriate use of platelets, which might increase the risk of transfusion-related complications to recipients, and lead to a shortage of platelets. An audit of platelet components helps to determine the effectiveness and appropriateness of their use and in improving transfusion practices. We did an audit of the use of platelet transfusions at our centre. Methods We conducted a prospective concurrent audit of the platelet transfusion practices. The audit cycle had four steps: (i) defining the standards; (ii) data collection; (iii) comparison against the standards; and (iv) presenting them to clinicians for further improvement. Results Platelet components were used appropriately in 93.6% (2420/2586) of episodes. The platelet count was not done before transfusion in only 6.4% (165/2586) of episodes. The dose of platelets was given appropriately in 84.3% (2180) of episodes of transfusion. Indications for appropriate transfusion classified as pre-procedure, prophylactic and therapeutic transfusions were 11.3% (293), 66.1% (1450) and 13% (412), respectively. Medicine and medical oncology were the specialties with the highest level of appropriateness. Conclusion An audit of transfusion practices benefits transfusion services and clinicians in terms of judicious use of platelet components and better inventory management.

Risk factors for platelet transfusion in glioblastoma surgery

The objectives of this study are to identify risk factors for and to evaluate clinical outcomes of platelet transfusion in glioblastoma surgery. The medical records of adult patients who underwent craniotomy for glioblastoma resection at a single academic medical center were retrospectively reviewed. We stratified patients into 2 groups: those who were transfused at least 1 unit of platelets intraoperatively or postoperatively (no more than 7 days after surgery), and those who were not transfused with platelets. Through the use of a 1:3 matched cohort analysis, we compared complications, length of stay, discharge disposition, and mortality, across groups. One hundred and five consecutive adult patients were included in this study. Thirteen patients (12.38%) received platelet transfusions. Prior antiplatelet therapy (odds ratio [OR] 8.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.36-28.58), preoperative platelet count less than 200,000 cells/µL (OR 8.46, 95% CI: 2.16-33.22), and longer operative times (OR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.10-2.72) were significant risk factors for platelet transfusion. There were no significant differences in the outcomes of interest in the matched cohort analysis.

Audit of appropriate use of platelet transfusions: validation of adjudication criteria

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Platelet (PLT) transfusions must be used appropriately, as they are in chronic short supply, costly and risky to patients. The goals of this audit were to: (1) validate preset adjudication criteria through an audit of appropriateness at four large academic hospitals; (2) identify variability in appropriateness across medical services, physician specialties or hospital locations; and (3) inform logistical or educational interventions that may reduce inappropriate use.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A chart review of two hundred patients receiving PLT transfusions was performed. Fifty consecutive transfusion episodes per site were audited in detail. Each transfusion episode was independently adjudicated as appropriate or inappropriate by two transfusion specialists based on predetermined criteria.

RESULTS

The adjudication criteria performed well with simple agreement of 95% (kappa statistic 0·83) between reviewers. Overall, 78% (95% CI: 72-84%) of PLT transfusions were adjudicated as appropriate, with results varying significantly by hospital site (range 62-94%). Prophylactic transfusions for non-bleeding patients had the highest proportion of appropriateness (85%, n = 80), and therapeutic transfusions for bleeding patients had the lowest (73%, n = 99). The lowest levels of appropriate platelet transfusions were observed in the operating rooms (60%) and when ordered by the general surgery service (55%).

CONCLUSIONS

One in five platelet transfusions may be unnecessary, suggesting that interventions to improve PLT transfusion practice are warranted.

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.

Flow cytometric assessment of agonist-induced P-selectin expression as a measure of platelet quality in stored platelet concentrates

BACKGROUND

Platelet (PLT) function in PLT concentrates declines during storage and is further affected by pathogen reduction treatment. Flow cytometric assessment of agonist-induced P-selectin expression can be used to assess PLT function in patients with thrombocytopenia. The aim of this study was to evaluate how this functional test relates to established in vitro measures of PLT function.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Six units of PLTs in plasma and 6 units of riboflavin and ultraviolet (Mirasol, TerumoBCT)-treated PLTs in plasma were sampled on Days 2, 6, 8, and 10 after donation. PLT concentration, Annexin 5A staining, ThromboLUX (LightIntegra) thrombelastography, and P-selectin expression, both in unstimulated PLTs and in response to concentration series of adenosine diphosphate, collagen-related peptide, and thrombin receptor-activating peptide (TRAP), were measured.

RESULTS

For PLTs in plasma Annexin 5A expression increased by 0.60% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40%-0.80%) and P-selectin expression increased by 1.2% (95% CI, 0.80%-1.6%) per day. Responsiveness to TRAP simultaneously decreased by 1.3% (95% CI, 0.80%-1.8%) per day. After Mirasol treatment ThromboLUX scores decreased 3.3 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.4 points) from 22 to 19 points, Annexin 5A expression increased by 4.8% (95% CI, 3.3%-6.2%), and P-selectin expression increased by 13% (95% CI, 10%-16%), all averaged over the entire storage period. Responsiveness to TRAP simultaneously decreased by 19% (95% CI, 17%-21%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest flow cytometric measurement of agonist-induced P-selectin expression can measure PLT quality decline over the entire range encountered during 10-day storage of both standard PLTs and Mirasol-treated PLTs in plasma.