How do we implement pathogen reduction technology, while maintaining an adequate platelet inventory for our patients?

Transfusion outcomes between regular and low yield pathogen reduced platelets across different patient populations in a single institution

BACKGROUND

Pathogen reduction technology (PRT) effectively mitigates bacterial contamination in platelets but is more likely to produce low yield units. Although low dose transfusion using conventional platelets has not been associated with increased bleeding, these findings have not been reproduced with PRT-treated platelets.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Platelet transfusions in a tertiary adult hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Comparisons were made between PRT-treated regular (PRT-PR) and low (PRT-PL) yield platelets. Outcomes examined included the number of platelets and RBCs transfused, transfusion-free interval, and corrected count increment (CCI). Subgroup analyses were also performed on hematology-oncology inpatients and outpatients, as well as non-hematology-oncology patients.

RESULTS

Platelet utilization per patient remained mostly unchanged (mean 2.9-4.3 units per patient per month) even when the frequency of PRT-PL transfusion increased. Among 1402 patients examined, the number of platelets and RBCs transfused was not significantly different between patients first transfused with PRT-PR versus PRT-PL (mean number of platelet units = 2.8 vs. 3.1, p = 0.38; mean number of RBC units = 4.8 vs. 4.3, p = 0.93). Among 10,257 platelet transfusions examined, the transfusion-free interval (hazard ratio = 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.10) and CCI (10.2 vs. 11.0, p = 0.70) were comparable between PRT-PR and PRT-PL units. Similar findings were observed in all subgroups, except for shortened transfusion-free intervals among hematology-oncology inpatients.

CONCLUSION

PRT-PR and PRT-PL units may be used in an equivalent manner to maintain an adequate platelet inventory, since there was only a minor difference in time between transfusions.

Pathogen Reduction for Platelets—A Review of Recent Implementation Strategies

The development of pathogen reduction technologies (PRT) for labile blood components is a long-pursued goal in transfusion medicine. While PRT for red blood cells and whole blood are still in an early phase of development, different PRT platforms for plasma and platelets are commercially available and routinely used in several countries. This review describes complementary strategies recommended by the US FDA to mitigate the risk of septic reactions in platelet recipients, including PRT and large-volume delayed sampling, and summarizes the main findings of recent reports discussing economical and organizational issues of platelet PRT implementation. Sophisticated mathematical analytical models are available to determine the impact of PRT on platelet costs, shortages and outdates in different settings. PRT implementation requires careful planning to ensure the availability of sufficient economical, technological and human resources. A phased approach was used in most PRT implementation programs, starting with adult and pediatric immunocompromised patients at higher risk of developing septic platelet transfusion reactions. Overall, the reviewed studies show that significant progress has been made in this area, although additional efforts will be necessary to reduce the storage lesion of PRT platelets and to expand the sustainable applicability of PRT to all labile blood components.

Pathogen-reduced platelets in pediatric and neonatal patients: Demographics, transfusion rates, and transfusion reactions

BACKGROUND

Pathogen-reduced platelets (PR PLT) are the emerging standard for proactive transfusion-transmitted infection (TTI) mitigation. There is, however, continued hesitation to transfuse PR PLT in children due to limited published data. We report demographics, rates of transfusion, and transfusion reactions (TR) associated with FDA-approved PR PLT in pediatric and neonatal patients at an academic medical center.

METHODS

Retrospective review was performed for patients <18 years receiving at least one platelet over a 300-day period at a large, tertiary care hospital. Patients were transfused PR or conventional (CONV) PLT, based on inventory availability. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher Exact Test.

RESULTS

During the study period, 191 patients received 1010 platelet transfusions (892 units). Sixty-eight patients received PR PLT only (1.3 units/patient, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-1.5; 1.8 transfusions/patient, 95% CI 1.4-2.2), and 56 patients received CONV PLT only (1.4 units/patient, 95% CI 1.1-1.7; 1.6 transfusions/patient, 95% CI 1.3-1.9). Patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing chemotherapy/radiation and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant received the most platelet transfusions and more commonly received both platelet types. Of 506 PR PLT units, 5 TRs occurred; 386 CONV PLT resulted in two TRs (p = .7052). Of 51 neonates, 37 received PR PLT without adverse events, including 13 receiving phototherapy. No TTIs were identified in any group.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference in rates of transfusion or TRs between PR and CONV PLT. Our study provides additional evidence that PR PLT can be transfused to pediatric and neonatal patients without increasing the risk of acute adverse events.