Retrospective evaluation of the indications, safety and effects of fresh frozen plasma transfusions in 36 cats (2014-2018)

Retrospective study of canine blood xenotransfusion compared with type-matched feline blood allotransfusion to cats: indications, effectiveness, limitations and adverse effects

OBJECTIVES

Xenotransfusion is the transfusion of blood from one species to another. With varying availability of allogenic feline blood (AFB) and in emergency conditions, circumstances occur when canine blood is transfused to cats. This study aimed to characterise the indications, effectiveness, limitations, and acute and late transfusion-related adverse effects of canine blood xenotransfusion compared with matched AFB to anaemic cats, and their survival and longer-term outcome.

METHODS

This retrospective study (2013-2020) examined cats receiving canine blood xenotransfusions or AFB.

RESULTS

The study included 311 cats (xenotransfusion [X-group], n = 105; allotransfusion [A-group], n = 206). Xenotransfusion was more frequent among cats sustaining haemorrhage than in those with haemolysis (P <0.01) or hypoproliferative anaemia (P <0.001). Financial constraints were the most common reason to elect xenotransfusion (49%). The post-transfusion mean packed cell volume was higher (P <0.001) in the X-group (22%) compared with the A-group (18%), and also higher (P <0.001) at 48-96 h post-transfusion (23% vs 18%, respectively). Transfusion-related adverse effects (TRAEs) were more frequent (P = 0.001) in the X-group (37.1%) compared with the A-group (19.4%), as were delayed haemolytic transfusion reactions (85% vs 42.5%, respectively; P <0.001). Acute transfusion reactions (ATRs) were more frequent (P <0.001) in the A-group (60%) compared with the X-group (20%). TRAEs were unassociated with survival to discharge. The survival to discharge rate of the X-group (55%) was lower (P = 0.007) than in the A-group (73%), while post-discharge survival rates to 30 days of cats surviving to discharge were 90% and 88%, respectively (P = 0.85).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Canine blood xenotransfusions to cats might save lives in emergency conditions when AFB is unavailable or blood typing is infeasible. The survival to discharge rate of the X-group was lower than that of the A-group. The longer-term survival rate of cats administered xenotransfusions and surviving to discharge from the hospital was good.

Colloids Yes or No? - a "Gretchen Question" Answered

Colloid solutions, both natural and synthetic, had been widely accepted as having superior volume expanding effects than crystalloids. Synthetic colloid solutions were previously considered at least as effective as natural colloids, as well as being cheaper and easily available. As a result, synthetic colloids (and HES in particular) were the preferred resuscitation fluid in many countries. In the past decade, several cascading events have called into question their efficacy and revealed their harmful effects. In 2013, the medicines authorities placed substantial restrictions on HES administration in people which has resulted in an overall decrease in their use. Whether natural colloids (such as albumin-containing solutions) should replace synthetic colloids remains inconclusive based on the current evidence. Albumin seems to be safer than synthetic colloids in people, but clear evidence of a positive effect on survival is still lacking. Furthermore, species-specific albumin is not widely available, while xenotransfusions with human serum albumin have known side effects. Veterinary data on the safety and efficacy of synthetic and natural colloids is limited to mostly retrospective evaluations or experimental studies with small numbers of patients (mainly dogs). Large, prospective, randomized, long-term outcome-oriented studies are lacking. This review focuses on advantages and disadvantages of synthetic and natural colloids in veterinary medicine. Adopting human guidelines is weighed against the particularities of our specific patient populations, including the risk-benefit ratio and lack of alternatives available in human medicine.

2021 ISFM Consensus Guidelines on the Collection and Administration of Blood and Blood Products in Cats

PRACTICAL RELEVANCE

Blood and blood products are increasingly available for practitioners to use in the management of haematological conditions, and can be lifesaving and therapeutically useful for patients with anaemia and/or coagulopathies. It is important for feline healthcare that donors are selected appropriately, and transfusions of blood or blood products are given to recipients that will benefit from them. Complications can occur, but can be largely avoided with careful donor management and recipient selection, understanding of blood type compatibility, and transfusion monitoring.

CLINICAL CHALLENGES

Feline blood transfusion, while potentially a lifesaving procedure, can also be detrimental to donor and recipient without precautions. Cats have naturally occurring alloantibodies to red cell antigens and severe reactions can occur with type-mismatched transfusions. Blood transfusions can also transmit infectious agents to the recipient, so donor testing is essential. Finally, donors must be in good health, and sedated as appropriate, with blood collected in a safe and sterile fashion to optimise the benefit to recipients. Transfusion reactions are possible and can be mild to severe in nature. Autologous blood transfusions and xenotransfusions may be considered in certain situations.

EVIDENCE BASE

These Guidelines have been created by a panel of authors convened by the International Society of Feline Medicine (ISFM), based on available literature. They are aimed at general practitioners to provide a practical guide to blood typing, cross-matching, and blood collection and administration.

Association of Veterinary Hematology and Transfusion Medicine (AVHTM) Transfusion Reaction Small Animal Consensus Statement (TRACS). Part 1: Definitions and clinical signs

OBJECTIVE

To use a systematic, evidence-based consensus process to develop definitions for transfusion reactions in dogs and cats.

DESIGN

Evidence evaluation of the literature was carried out for identified transfusion reaction types in dogs and cats. Reaction definitions were generated based on synthesis of human and veterinary literature. Consensus on the definitions was achieved through Delphi-style surveys. Draft recommendations were made available through industry specialty listservs and comments were incorporated.

RESULTS

Definitions with imputability criteria were developed for 14 types of transfusion reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence review and consensus process resulted in definitions that can be used to facilitate future veterinary transfusion reaction research.

Association of Veterinary Hematology and Transfusion Medicine (AVHTM) Transfusion Reaction Small Animal Consensus Statement (TRACS) Part 2: Prevention and monitoring

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review available evidence to develop guidelines for the prevention of transfusion reactions and monitoring of transfusion administration in dogs and cats.

DESIGN

Evidence evaluation of the literature (identified through Medline searches through Pubmed and Google Scholar searches) was carried out for identified transfusion reaction types in dogs and cats. Evidence was evaluated using PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) questions generated for each reaction type. Evidence was categorized by level of evidence (LOE) and quality (Good, Fair, or Poor). Guidelines for prevention and monitoring were generated based on the synthesis of the evidence. Consensus on the final recommendations and a proposed transfusion administration monitoring form was achieved through Delphi-style surveys. Draft recommendations and the monitoring form were made available through veterinary specialty listservs and comments were incorporated.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine guidelines and a transfusion administration monitoring form were formulated from the evidence review with a high degree of consensus CONCLUSIONS: This systematic evidence evaluation process yielded recommended prevention and monitoring guidelines and a proposed transfusion administration form. However, significant knowledge gaps were identified, demonstrating the need for additional research in veterinary transfusion medicine.

Association of Veterinary Hematology and Transfusion Medicine (AVHTM) transfusion reaction small animal consensus statement (TRACS). Part 3: Diagnosis and treatment

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review available evidence to develop guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of transfusion-associated reactions in dogs and cats.

DESIGN

Standardized and systemic evaluation of the literature (identified through Medline via PubMed and Google Scholar searches) was carried out for identified transfusion reaction types in dogs and cats. The available evidence was evaluated using PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) questions generated for each reaction type. The evidence was categorized by level of evidence (LOE) and quality (Good, Fair, or Poor). Guidelines, diagnostic, and treatment algorithms were generated based on the evaluation of the evidence. Consensus on the final guidelines was achieved through Delphi-style surveys. Draft recommendations were disseminated through veterinary specialty listservs for review and comments, which were evaluated and integrated prior to final publication.

RESULTS

Medline via PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched. There were 14 Population Intervention Comparison Outcome questions identified and corresponding worksheets were developed focusing on the diagnosis and treatment of transfusion-associated reactions in dogs and cats. Fourteen guidelines and four algorithms were developed with a high degree of consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic evidence evaluation process yielded recommended diagnostic and treatment algorithms for use in practice. However, significant knowledge gaps were identified, demonstrating the need for additional research in veterinary transfusion medicine.