Correction of subclinical coagulation disorders before percutaneous dilatational tracheotomy

Platelet Transfusion in Patients With Sepsis and Thrombocytopenia: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Using a Large ICU Database

Purpose

Sepsis with thrombocytopenia is highly prevalent in critically ill intensive care unit (ICU) patients and is associated with adverse outcomes. Platelet transfusion is the primary treatment of choice. However, evidence for the beneficial effects of platelet transfusion in patients with sepsis and thrombocytopenia is scarce and low in quality. This study aimed to evaluate the association between platelet transfusion and mortality among ICU patients with sepsis and thrombocytopenia.

Patients and Methods

Using the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database (v. 1.4), the outcomes of sepsis patients with platelet counts of ≤ 150,000/μL were compared between those who did and did not receive platelet transfusion. The primary outcomes were 28- and 90-day all-cause mortalities. The secondary outcomes were red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, ICU-free days, and hospital-free days. Propensity score matching was employed to assemble a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics.

Results

Among 7,765 eligible patients, 677 received platelet transfusion and were matched with 677 patients who did not receive platelet transfusion according to propensity scores. Platelet transfusion, as compared with no platelet transfusion, was associated with an increased risk of 28-day all-cause mortality [36.9 vs. 30.4%, odds ratio (OR), 1.21; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01–1.46; p = 0.039], increased risk of 90-day all-cause mortality (50.8 vs. 44.6%, OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.00–1.31; p = 0.048), fewer mean (standard deviation) 28-day ICU-free days (15.88 ± 8.97 vs. 18.64 ± 8.33 days, p < 0.001), and fewer hospital-free days (10.29 ± 8.49 vs. 11.43 ± 8.85 days, p = 0.017). The rate of RBC transfusion was not significantly different between the platelet transfusion and non-transfusion groups (p = 0.149). The results were maintained across several subgroup and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

In this study, platelet transfusion was associated with higher 28- and 90-day all-cause mortalities. These results suggest the potential hazards of platelet transfusion in ICU patients with sepsis and thrombocytopenia.

Aggregometry and thromboelastography to identify the timing to trach a COVID-19 patient receiving both antiplatelet therapy and enoxaparin

In COVID-19 patients receiving enoxaparin and antiplatelets therapy, aggregometry and thromboelastography might be considered an adjunctive tool to identify the time to perform procedures at risk of bleeding, such as tracheostomy.

Transfusion strategies in non-bleeding critically ill adults: a clinical practice guideline from the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based clinical practice recommendations regarding transfusion practices in non-bleeding, critically ill adults.

DESIGN

A task force involving 13 international experts and three methodologists used the GRADE approach for guideline development.

METHODS

The task force identified four main topics: red blood cell transfusion thresholds, red blood cell transfusion avoidance strategies, platelet transfusion, and plasma transfusion. The panel developed structured guideline questions using population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) format.

RESULTS

The task force generated 16 clinical practice recommendations (3 strong recommendations, 13 conditional recommendations), and identified five PICOs with insufficient evidence to make any recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations and identifies areas where further research is needed regarding transfusion practices and transfusion avoidance in non-bleeding, critically ill adults.

Prophylactic plasma transfusion for patients without inherited bleeding disorders or anticoagulant use undergoing non-cardiac surgery or invasive procedures

BACKGROUND

In the absence of bleeding, plasma is commonly transfused to people prophylactically to prevent bleeding. In this context, it is transfused before operative or invasive procedures (such as liver biopsy or chest drainage tube insertion) in those considered at increased risk of bleeding, typically defined by abnormalities of laboratory tests of coagulation. As plasma contains procoagulant factors, plasma transfusion may reduce perioperative bleeding risk. This outcome has clinical importance given that perioperative bleeding and blood transfusion have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Plasma is expensive, and some countries have experienced issues with blood product shortages, donor pool reliability, and incomplete screening for transmissible infections. Thus, although the benefit of prophylactic plasma transfusion has not been well established, plasma transfusion does carry potentially life-threatening risks.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of prophylactic plasma transfusion for people with coagulation test abnormalities (in the absence of inherited bleeding disorders or use of anticoagulant medication) requiring non-cardiac surgery or invasive procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), without language or publication status restrictions in: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017 Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946); Ovid Embase (from 1974); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCOHost) (from 1937); PubMed (e-publications and in-process citations ahead of print only); Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950); Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (from 1982); Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (Thomson Reuters, from 1990); ClinicalTrials.gov; and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Search Platform (ICTRP) to 28 January 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs comparing: prophylactic plasma transfusion to placebo, intravenous fluid, or no intervention; prophylactic plasma transfusion to alternative pro-haemostatic agents; or different haemostatic thresholds for prophylactic plasma transfusion. We included participants of any age, and we excluded trials incorporating individuals with previous active bleeding, with inherited bleeding disorders, or taking anticoagulant medication before enrolment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials in this review, all were conducted in high-income countries. Three additional trials are ongoing. One trial compared fresh frozen plasma (FFP) transfusion with no transfusion given. One trial compared FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion given. One trial compared FFP transfusion with administration of alternative pro-haemostatic agents (factors II, IX, and X followed by VII). One trial compared the use of different transfusion triggers using the international normalised ratio measurement. One trial compared the use of a thromboelastographic-guided transfusion trigger using standard laboratory measurements of coagulation. Four trials enrolled only adults, whereas the fifth trial did not specify participant age. Four trials included only minor procedures that could be performed by the bedside. Only one trial included some participants undergoing major surgical operations. Two trials included only participants in intensive care. Two trials included only participants with liver disease. Three trials did not recruit sufficient participants to meet their pre-calculated sample size. Overall, the quality of evidence was low to very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology, due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision. One trial was stopped after recruiting two participants, therefore this review's findings are based on the remaining four trials (234 participants). When plasma transfusion was compared with no transfusion given, we are very uncertain whether there was a difference in 30-day mortality (1 trial comparing FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion, 72 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 1.10; very low-quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether there was a difference in major bleeding within 24 hours (1 trial comparing FFP transfusion vs no transfusion, 76 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.93; very low-quality evidence; 1 trial comparing FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion, 72 participants; RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.28 to 8.93; very low-quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether there was a difference in the number of blood product transfusions per person (1 trial, 76 participants; study authors reported no difference; very low-quality evidence) or in the number of people requiring transfusion (1 trial comparing FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion, 72 participants; study authors reported no blood transfusion given; very low-quality evidence) or in the risk of transfusion-related adverse events (acute lung injury) (1 trial, 76 participants; study authors reported no difference; very low-quality evidence). When plasma transfusion was compared with other pro-haemostatic agents, we are very uncertain whether there was a difference in major bleeding (1 trial; 21 participants; no events; very low-quality evidence) or in transfusion-related adverse events (febrile or allergic reactions) (1 trial, 21 participants; RR 9.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 162.24; very low-quality evidence). When different triggers for FFP transfusion were compared, the number of people requiring transfusion may have been reduced (for overall blood products) when a thromboelastographic-guided transfusion trigger was compared with standard laboratory tests (1 trial, 60 participants; RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; low-quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether there was a difference in major bleeding (1 trial, 60 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-quality evidence) or in transfusion-related adverse events (allergic reactions) (1 trial; 60 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-quality evidence). Only one trial reported 30-day mortality. No trials reported procedure-related harmful events (excluding bleeding) or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Review findings show uncertainty for the utility and safety of prophylactic FFP use. This is due to predominantly very low-quality evidence that is available for its use over a range of clinically important outcomes, together with lack of confidence in the wider applicability of study findings, given the paucity or absence of study data in settings such as major body cavity surgery, extensive soft tissue surgery, orthopaedic surgery, or neurosurgery. Therefore, from the limited RCT evidence, we can neither support nor oppose the use of prophylactic FFP in clinical practice.

Prophylactic platelet transfusions prior to surgery for people with a low platelet count

BACKGROUND

People with thrombocytopenia often require a surgical procedure. A low platelet count is a relative contraindication to surgery due to the risk of bleeding. Platelet transfusions are used in clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in people with thrombocytopenia. Current practice in many countries is to correct thrombocytopenia with platelet transfusions prior to surgery. Alternatives to platelet transfusion are also used prior surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of prophylactic platelet transfusions prior to surgery for people with a low platelet count.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following major data bases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), PubMed (e-publications only), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the Transfusion Evidence Library and ongoing trial databases to 11 December 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-RCTs and controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs), that met Cochrane EPOC (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care) criteria, that involved the transfusion of platelets prior to surgery (any dose, at any time, single or multiple) in people with low platelet counts. We excluded studies on people with a low platelet count who were actively bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for data collection. We were only able to combine data for two outcomes and we presented the rest of the findings in a narrative form.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified five RCTs, all conducted in adults; there were no eligible non-randomised studies. Three completed trials enrolled 180 adults and two ongoing trials aim to include 627 participants. The completed trials were conducted between 2005 and 2009. The two ongoing trials are scheduled to complete recruitment by October 2019. One trial compared prophylactic platelet transfusions to no transfusion in people with thrombocytopenia in an intensive care unit (ICU). Two small trials, 108 participants, compared prophylactic platelet transfusions to other alternative treatments in people with liver disease. One trial compared desmopressin to fresh frozen plasma or one unit of platelet transfusion or both prior to surgery. The second trial compared platelet transfusion prior to surgery with two types of thrombopoietin mimetics: romiplostim and eltrombopag. None of the included trials were free from methodological bias. No included trials compared different platelet count thresholds for administering a prophylactic platelet transfusion prior to surgery. None of the included trials reported on all the review outcomes and the overall quality per reported outcome was very low.None of the three completed trials reported: all-cause mortality at 90 days post surgery; mortality secondary to bleeding, thromboembolism or infection; number of red cell or platelet transfusions per participant; length of hospital stay; or quality of life.None of the trials included children or people who needed major surgery or emergency surgical procedures.Platelet transfusion versus no platelet transfusion (1 trial, 72 participants)We were very uncertain whether giving a platelet transfusion prior to surgery had any effect on all-cause mortality within 30 days (1 trial, 72 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 1.45; very-low quality evidence). We were very uncertain whether giving a platelet transfusion prior to surgery had any effect on the risk of major (1 trial, 64 participants; RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.29 to 8.92; very low-quality evidence), or minor bleeding (1 trial, 64 participants; RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.85; very-low quality evidence). No serious adverse events occurred in either study arm (1 trial, 72 participants, very low-quality evidence).Platelet transfusion versus alternative to platelet transfusion (2 trials, 108 participants)We were very uncertain whether giving a platelet transfusion prior to surgery compared to an alternative has any effect on the risk of major (2 trials, 108 participants; no events; very low-quality evidence), or minor bleeding (desmopressin: 1 trial, 36 participants; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.06 to 13.23; very-low quality evidence: thrombopoietin mimetics: 1 trial, 65 participants; no events; very-low quality evidence). We were very uncertain whether there was a difference in transfusion-related adverse effects between the platelet transfused group and the alternative treatment group (desmopressin: 1 trial, 36 participants; RR 2.70, 95% CI 0.12 to 62.17; very-low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings of this review were based on three small trials involving minor surgery in adults with thrombocytopenia. We found insufficient evidence to recommend the administration of preprocedure prophylactic platelet transfusions in this situation with a lack of evidence that transfusion resulted in a reduction in postoperative bleeding or all-cause mortality. The small number of trials meeting the inclusion criteria and the limitation in reported outcomes across the trials precluded meta-analysis for most outcomes. Further adequately powered trials, in people of all ages, of prophylactic platelet transfusions compared with no transfusion, other alternative treatments, and considering different platelet thresholds prior to planned and emergency surgical procedures are required. Future trials should include major surgery and report on bleeding, adverse effects, mortality (as a long-term outcome) after surgery, duration of hospital stay and quality of life measures.

Percutaneous tracheostomy in patients on anticoagulants

Aims:

To determine if percutaneous tracheostomy is safe in critically ill patients treated with anticoagulant therapies.

Settings and Design:

Single-center retrospective study including all the patients who underwent percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) placement over a 1-year period in a 14-bed, cardiothoracic and vascular Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

Materials and Methods:

Patients demographics and characteristics, anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapies, coagulation profile, performed technique and use of bronchoscopic guidance were retrieved.

Results:

Thirty-six patients (2.7% of the overall ICU population) underwent PDT over the study period. Twenty-six (72%) patients were on anticoagulation therapy, 1 patient was on antiplatelet therapy and 2 further patients received prophylactic doses of low molecular weight heparin. Only 4 patients had normal coagulation profile and were not receiving anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapies. Overall, bleeding of any severity complicated 19% of PDT. No procedure-related deaths occurred.

Conclusions:

PDT was proved to be safe even in critically ill-patients treated with anticoagulant therapies. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings.