Search

Preterm neonates are a highly transfused patient group, with platelet transfusions being the second most transfused cellular blood component. Historically, however, evidence to inform optimal platelet transfusion practice has been limited. In pediatrics, much of the evidence has been inferred from studies in adult patients, although neonatologists have generally applied more cautious and liberal platelet transfusion thresholds to mitigate the complications of intraventricular hemorrhage. A total of three randomized controlled trials have now been published comparing different platelet transfusion strategies in neonates., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The optimal use of prophylactic platelet transfusion remains uncertain in a number of clinical scenarios. Platelet count thresholds have been established in patients with hematologic malignancies, yet thresholds backed by scientific data are limited or do not exist for many patient populations. Clinical scenarios involving transfusion thresholds for thrombocytopenic patients with critical illness, need for surgery or invasive procedures, or those involving specials populations like children and neonates, lack clear evidence for discerning favorable outcomes without undue risk related to platelet transfusion. In addition, while prophylactic platelet transfusions are administered with the goal of enhancing hemostasis, increasing evidence supports critical nonhemostatic roles for platelets related to innate and adaptive immunity, inflammation, and angiogenesis, which may impact patient responses and outcomes. Here we review several recent studies conducted in adult or pediatric patients that highlight the limitations in our current understanding of prophylactic platelet transfusion. Together, these studies underscore the need for additional research, especially in the form of robust randomized clinical trials and integrating additional parameters beyond the platelet count. Future research at the basic, translational, and clinical levels will best define the optimal role for prophylactic transfusion across the lifespan and its broader impact on health and disease., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest CLM is the recipient of an National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NIH/NHLBI) career development award related to platelet transfusion. SJS is an employee of NHSBT, who manufacturers platelets, and is in receipt of multiple research grants for studies of platelet transfusions, including trials discussed in this article. MS-V serves as a consultant for Johnson and Johnson and has laboratory equipment on loan from Sysmex America, Inc DK serves on the advisory board for CSH Behring and receives royalties from UpToDate and consulting fees from NIH/NHLBI for the Recipient Epidemiology and Donor Evaluation Study (REDSIV-Pediatric). AEM receives research funding from Novo Nordisk and has received honoraria for serving on Novo Nordisk Advisory Boards. CDJ serves as a consultant for Westat. DJT serves on the medical advisory board for Fresenius Kabi. MEN serves as a consultant for REDSIV-Pediatric and is funded by the NIH/NHLBI. RF has no relevant disclosures., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background and Objectives: Platelet transfusions are used across multiple patient populations to prevent and correct bleeding. This scoping review aimed to map the currently available systematic reviews (SRs) and evidence-based guidelines in the field of platelet transfusion., Materials and Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in seven databases for SRs on effectiveness (including dose and timing, transfusion trigger and ratio to other blood products), production modalities and decision support related to platelet transfusion. The following data were charted: methodological features of the SR, population, concept and context features, outcomes reported, study design and number of studies included. Results were synthesized in interactive evidence maps., Results: We identified 110 SRs. The majority focused on clinical effectiveness, including prophylactic or therapeutic transfusions compared to no platelet transfusion (34 SRs), prophylactic compared to therapeutic-only transfusion (8 SRs), dose, timing (11 SRs) and threshold for platelet transfusion (15 SRs) and the ratio of platelet transfusion to other blood products in massive transfusion (14 SRs). Furthermore, we included 34 SRs on decision support, of which 26 evaluated viscoelastic testing. Finally, we identified 22 SRs on platelet production modalities, including derivation (4 SRs), pathogen inactivation (6 SRs), leucodepletion (4 SRs) and ABO/human leucocyte antigen matching (5 SRs). The SRs were mapped according to concept and clinical context., Conclusion: An interactive evidence map of SRs and evidence-based guidelines in the field of platelet transfusion has been developed and identified multiple reviews. This work serves as a tool for researchers looking for evidence gaps, thereby both supporting research and avoiding unnecessary duplication., (© 2022 The Authors. Vox Sanguinis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Blood Transfusion.)

Platelet transfusions are commonly administered for the prevention or treatment of bleeding in patients with acquired thrombocytopenia across a range of clinical contexts. Recent data, including randomized trials, have highlighted uncertainties in the risk-benefit balance of this therapy, which is the subject of this review. Hemovigilance systems report that platelets are the most frequently implicated component in transfusion reactions. There is considerable variation in platelet count increment after platelet transfusion, and limited evidence of efficacy for clinical outcomes, including prevention of bleeding. Bleeding events commonly occur despite the different policies for platelet transfusion prophylaxis. The underlying mechanisms of harm reported in randomized trials may be related to the role of platelets beyond hemostasis, including mediating inflammation. Research supports the implementation of a restrictive platelet transfusion policy. Research is needed to better understand the impact of platelet donation characteristics on outcomes, and to determine the optimal thresholds for platelet transfusion before invasive procedures or major surgery (eg, laparotomy). Platelet transfusion policies should move toward a risk-adapted approach that does not focus solely on platelet count., (© 2022 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Platelet transfusions are a common intervention for thrombocytopenia. Although the main reason for transfusing platelets is to improve hemostasis, platelets have many additional physiological roles, including interactions with immune pathways. Much of the evidence base for safe and effective transfusions has been informed by randomized trials in adult patients with hematological malignancies. Only three randomized trials have been conducted in sick neonates. These trials have indicated evidence of harm, including a significantly higher rate of death or major bleeding within 28 days after randomization for the largest trial, which enrolled 660 infants. The overall research indicates limited effectiveness of platelet transfusions to reduce bleeding risk. It is important that the results of trials are implemented into practice, but uptake of research findings into neonatal medicine remains inconsistent, as for many areas of health care. There is a need to establish which potential implementation strategies (cost-) efficiently enact change, such as audit and feedback, automated reminder systems for ordering transfusions, and use of opinion leaders. Research is exploring potential mechanisms underlying the lack of effectiveness of platelet transfusions and the increased bleeding and mortality observed in neonatal randomized trials. One potential mechanism concerns the roles of platelets to promote excessive angiogenic signals during a vulnerable period of brain development. A further hypothesis explores the effects of transfusing "adult" platelets into "neonatal" thrombocytopenic blood on primary hemostasis and immune responses., (© 2022 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.)

Background: Prophylactic platelet transfusions prevent bleeding in hemato-oncology patients, but it is unclear how any benefit varies between patients. Our aim was to assess if patients with different baseline risks for bleeding benefit differently from a prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy., Study Design and Methods: Using the data from the randomized controlled TOPPS trial (Trial of Platelet Prophylaxis), we developed a prediction model for World Health Organization grades 2, 3, and 4 bleeding risk (defined as at least one bleeding episode in a 30 days period) and grouped patients in four risk-quartiles based on this predicted baseline risk. Predictors in the model were baseline platelet count, age, diagnosis, disease modifying treatment, disease status, previous stem cell transplantation, and the randomization arm., Results: The model had a c-statistic of 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.64). There was little variation in predicted risks (quartiles 46%, 47%, and 51%), but prophylactic platelet transfusions gave a risk reduction in all risk quartiles. The absolute risk difference (ARD) was 3.4% (CI -12.2 to 18.9) in the lowest risk quartile (quartile 1), 7.4% (95% CI -8.4 to 23.3) in quartile 2, 6.8% (95% CI -9.1 to 22.9) in quartile 3, and 12.8% (CI -3.1 to 28.7) in the highest risk quartile (quartile 4)., Conclusion: In our study, generally accepted bleeding risk predictors had limited predictive power (expressed by the low c-statistic), and, given the wide confidence intervals of predicted ARD, could not aid in identifying subgroups of patients who might benefit more (or less) from prophylactic platelet transfusion., (© 2021 The Authors. Transfusion published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of AABB.)

Background: Guidelines for platelet (PLT) transfusion are an important source of information for clinicians. Although guidelines intend to increase consistency and quality of care, variation in methodology and recommendations may exist that could impact the value of a guideline. We aimed to determine the quality of existing PLT transfusion guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument and to describe the inconsistencies in recommendations., Study Design and Methods: A systematic search was undertaken for evidence-based guidelines from January 1, 2013, to January 25, 2019. Citations were reviewed in duplicate for inclusion and descriptive data extracted. Four physicians appraised the guideline using the AGREE II instrument and the scaled score for each item evaluated was calculated. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO., Results: Of 6744 citations, 6740 records were screened. Seven of 28 full-text studies met the inclusion criteria. The median scaled score (and the interquartile range of the scaled score) for the following items were as follows: scope and purpose, 94% (8%); stakeholder involvement, 63% (18%); rigor of development, 83% (14%); clarity of presentation, 94% (6%); applicability, 58% (20%); and editorial independence, 77% (4%). Overall quality ranged from 4 to 7 (7 is the maximum score). Inconsistent recommendations were on prophylactic PLT transfusion in hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia in the presence of risk factors and dose recommendations., Conclusion: Inconsistencies between guidelines and variable quality highlight areas for future guideline writers to address. Areas of specific attention include issues of stakeholder involvement and applicability., (© 2021 AABB.)

Platelet transfusion refractoriness results in adverse outcomes and increased health care costs. Managing refractoriness resulting from HLA alloimmunization necessitates the use of HLA antigen-matched platelets but requires a large platelet donor pool and does not guarantee full matching. We report the first randomized, double-blind, noninferiority, crossover trial comparing HLA epitope-matched (HEM) platelets with HLA standard antigen-matched (HSM) platelet transfusions. Alloimmunized, platelet-refractory, thrombocytopenic patients with aplastic anemia, myelodysplastic syndrome, or acute myeloid leukemia were eligible. HEM platelets were selected using HLAMatchMaker epitope (specifically eplet) matching. Patients received up to 8 prophylactic HEM and HSM transfusions provided in random order. The primary outcome was 1-hour posttransfusion platelet count increment (PCI). Forty-nine patients were randomized at 14 UK hospitals. For intention to treat, numbers of evaluable transfusions were 107 and 112 for HEM and HSM methods, respectively. Unadjusted mean PCIs for HEM and HSM methods were 23.9 (standard deviation [SD], 15) and 23.5 (SD, 14.1), respectively (adjusted mean difference, -0.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.9 to 2.8). Because the lower limit of the 95% CI was not greater than the predefined noninferiority limit, the HEM approach was declared noninferior to the HSM approach. There were no differences in secondary outcomes of platelet counts, transfusion requirements, and bleeding events. Adequate 1-hour PCI was more frequently observed, with a mean number of 3.2 epitope mismatches, compared with 5.5 epitope mismatches for inadequate 1-hour increments. For every additional epitope mismatch, the likelihood of an adequate PCI decreased by 15%. Epitope-matched platelets should be considered to support HLA alloimmunized patients. This trial was registered at www.isrctn.com as #ISRCTN23996532., (© 2021 by The American Society of Hematology.)

The safety of platelet (PLT) concentrates with longer storage duration has been questioned due to biochemical and functional changes that occur during blood collection and storage. Some studies have suggested that transfusion efficacy is decreased and immune system dysfunction is worsened with increased storage age. We sought to describe the effect of PLT storage age on laboratory and clinical outcomes in critically ill children receiving PLT transfusions., Study Design and Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of a prospective, observational point-prevalence study. Children (3 days to 16 years of age) from 82 pediatric intensive care units in 16 countries were enrolled if they received a PLT transfusion during one of the predefined screening weeks. Outcomes (including PLT count increments, organ dysfunction, and transfusion reactions) were evaluated by PLT storage age., Results: Data from 497 patients were analyzed. The age of the PLT transfusions ranged from 1 to 7 days but the majority were 4 (24%) or 5 (36%) days of age. Nearly two-thirds of PLT concentrates were transfused to prevent bleeding. The indication for transfusion did not differ between storage age groups (P = .610). After patient and product variables were adjusted for, there was no association between storage age and incremental change in total PLT count or organ dysfunction scoring. A significant association between fresher storage age and febrile transfusion reactions (P = .002) was observed., Conclusion: The results in a large, diverse cohort of critically ill children raise questions about the impact of storage age on transfusion and clinical outcomes which require further prospective evaluation., (© 2020 AABB.)

The transfusion of platelets for both prophylaxis and treatment of bleeding is relevant to all areas of medicine and surgery. Historically, guidance regarding platelet transfusion has been limited by a lack of good quality clinical trials and so has been based largely on expert opinion. In recent years however there has been renewed interest in methods to prevent and treat hemorrhage, and the field has benefited from a number of large clinical trials. Some studies, such as platelet transfusion versus standard care after acute stroke due to spontaneous cerebral haemorrhage associated with antiplatelet therapy (PATCH) and platelets for neonatal transfusion Study 2 (PLANET-2), have reported an increased risk of harm with platelet transfusion in specific patient groups. These studies suggest a wider role of platelets beyond hemostasis, and highlight the need for further clinical trials to better understand the risks and benefits of platelet transfusions. This review evaluates the indications for platelet transfusion, both prophylactic and therapeutic, in the light of recent studies and clinical trials. It highlights new developments in the fields of platelet storage and platelet substitutes, and novel ways to avoid complications associated with platelet transfusions. Lastly, it reviews initiatives designed to reduce inappropriate use of platelet transfusions and to preserve this valuable resource for situations where there is evidence for their beneficial effect., (Crown Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To describe the indications and thresholds for plasma and platelet transfusions for pediatric extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, to compare responses to these transfusions and to describe institutional protocols directing their administration., Design: Subgroup analysis of two prospective, observational studies paired with survey of sites who enrolled subjects into this cohort., Setting: Fifty-one PICUs in 13 countries., Patients: Children (3 d to 16 yr old) were enrolled if they received a plasma or platelet transfusion while on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation during one of the predefined screening weeks., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Forty-eight children on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation received plasma transfusions and 90 received platelet transfusions. Sixty percent of plasma transfusions (29/48) and 79% of the platelet transfusions (71/90) were given for prophylaxis of bleeding. The median (interquartile range) international normalized ratio prior to transfusion, known in 75% of the patients (36/48), was 1.45 (1.20-1.85). The median (interquartile range) total platelet count prior to transfusion, known in all of the patients, was 70 × 10/L (52-90 × 10/L). The international normalized ratio and total platelet count values prior to transfusion did not vary based on bleeding versus nonbleeding indications. The median (interquartile range) reduction in international normalized ratio for mild coagulopathies (international normalized ratio ≤ 2.0) was 0.1 (0.4-0), median (interquartile range) increase in fibrinogen was 0.2 g/L (0.1-0.4 g/L) and median increase in total platelet count was 34 × 10/L (10-74 × 10/L). Through the course of their admission, children supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation received a total median (interquartile range) dose of 75 mL/kg (36-159 mL/kg) of plasma transfusions and 92 mL/kg (42-239 mL/kg) of platelet transfusions. Institutional protocols varied but provided guidance for platelet transfusions more commonly., Conclusions: Children supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation receive large volumes of plasma and platelet transfusions with some institutional guidance in the form of protocols, but significant variation in practice. Interventional studies are necessary to provide evidence to direct the transfusion of hemostatic products in children supported by extracorporeal membrane oxygenation.

The Platelets for Neonatal Thrombocytopenia (PlaNeT-2) trial reported an unexpected overall benefit of a prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold of 25 × 109/L compared with 50 × 109/L for major bleeding and/or mortality in preterm neonates (7% absolute-risk reduction). However, some neonates in the trial may have experienced little benefit or even harm from the 25 × 109/L threshold. We wanted to assess this heterogeneity of treatment effect in the PlaNet-2 trial, to investigate whether all preterm neonates benefit from the low threshold. We developed a multivariate logistic regression model in the PlaNet-2 data to predict baseline risk of major bleeding and/or mortality for all 653 neonates. We then ranked the neonates based on their predicted baseline risk and categorized them into 4 risk quartiles. Within these quartiles, we assessed absolute-risk difference between the 50 × 109/L- and 25 × 109/L-threshold groups. A total of 146 neonates died or developed major bleeding. The internally validated C-statistic of the model was 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.68). The 25 × 109/L threshold was associated with absolute-risk reduction in all risk groups, varying from 4.9% in the lowest risk group to 12.3% in the highest risk group. These results suggest that a 25 × 109/L prophylactic platelet count threshold can be adopted in all preterm neonates, irrespective of predicted baseline outcome risk. Future studies are needed to improve the predictive accuracy of the baseline risk model. This trial was registered at www.isrctn.com as #ISRCTN87736839., (© 2019 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Objectives: To describe the epidemiology of platelet transfusions in critically ill children with an underlying oncologic diagnosis and to examine effects of prophylactic versus therapeutic transfusions., Design: Subgroup analysis of a prospective, observational study., Setting: Eighty-two PICUs in 16 countries., Patients: All children (3 d to 16 yr old) who received a platelet transfusion during one of the six predefined screening weeks and had received chemotherapy in the previous 6 months or had undergone hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in the last year., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Of the 548 patients enrolled in the parent study, 237 (43%) had an underlying oncologic diagnosis. In this population, 71% (168/237) of transfusions were given prophylactically, and 59% (139/237) of transfusions were given at a total platelet count greater than 20 × 10/L, higher than the current recommendations. Those with an underlying oncologic diagnosis were significantly older, and received less support including less mechanical ventilation, fewer medications that affect platelet function, and less use of extracorporeal life support than those without an underlying oncologic diagnosis. In this subpopulation, there were no statistically significant differences in median (interquartile range) platelet transfusion thresholds when comparing bleeding or nonbleeding patients (50 × 10/L [10-50 × 10/L] and 30 × 10/L [10-50 × 10/L], respectively [p = 0.166]). The median (interquartile range) interval transfusion increment in children with an underlying oncologic diagnosis was 17 × 10/L (6-52 × 10/L). The presence of an underlying oncologic diagnosis was associated with a poor platelet increment response to platelet transfusion in this cohort (adjusted odds ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.22-0.95; p = 0.035)., Conclusions: Children with an underlying oncologic diagnosis receive nearly half of platelet transfusions prescribed by pediatric intensivists. Over half of these transfusions are prescribed at total platelet count greater than current recommendations. Studies must be done to clarify appropriate indications for platelet transfusions in this vulnerable population.

Background: Neonatal haemorrhaging is often co-observed with thrombocytopenia; however, no evidence of a causal relationship with low platelet count has been reported. Regardless, the administration of a platelet transfusion is often based upon this parameter. Accurate measurement of platelet function in small volumes of adult blood samples by flow cytometry is well established and we propose that the use of the same technology could provide complementary information to guide the administration of platelet transfusions in premature neonates., Methods: In 28 neonates born at 27-41 weeks gestation, platelet function after stimulation agonists was measured using fibrinogen binding and P-selectin expression (a marker of degranulation)., Results: Platelets of neonates with gestation of ≤36 weeks (n = 20) showed reduced fibrinogen binding and degranulation with ADP, and reduced degranulation with CRP-XL. Degranulation Scores of 7837 ± 5548, 22,408 ± 5301 and 53,131 ± 12,102 (mean ± SEM) identified significant differences between three groups: <29, 29-36 and >36 weeks gestation). Fibrinogen binding and degranulation responses to ADP were significantly reduced in suspected septic neonates (n = 6) and the Fibrinogen Binding scores clearly separated the septic and healthy group (88.2 ± 10.3 vs 38.6 ± 12.2, P = 0.03)., Conclusions: Flow cytometric measurement of platelet function identified clinically different neonatal groups and may eventually contribute to assessment of neonates requiring platelet transfusion.

Objectives: To determine if transfusing ABO compatible platelets has a greater effect on incremental change in platelet count as compared to ABO incompatible platelets in critically ill children., Design: Secondary analysis of a prospective, observational study. Transfusions were classified as either ABO compatible, major incompatibility, or minor incompatibility. The primary outcome was the incremental change in platelet count. Transfusion reactions were analyzed as a secondary outcome., Setting: Eighty-two PICUs in 16 countries., Patients: Children (3 d to 16 yr old) were enrolled if they received a platelet transfusion during one of the predefined screening weeks., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Five-hundred three children were enrolled and had complete ABO information for both donor and recipient, as well as laboratory data. Three-hundred forty-two (68%) received ABO-identical platelets, 133 (26%) received platelets with major incompatibility, and 28 (6%) received platelets with minor incompatibility. Age, weight, proportion with mechanical ventilation or underlying oncologic diagnosis did not differ between the groups. After adjustment for transfusion dose, there was no difference in the incremental change in platelet count between the groups; the median (interquartile range) change for ABO-identical transfusions was 28 × 10 cells/L (8-68 × 10 cells/L), for transfusions with major incompatibility 26 × 10 cells/L (7-74 × 10 cells/L), and for transfusions with minor incompatibility 54 × 10 cells/L (14-81 × 10 cells/L) (p = 0.37). No differences in count increment between the groups were noted for bleeding (p = 0.92) and nonbleeding patients (p = 0.29). There were also no differences observed between the groups for any transfusion reaction (p = 0.07)., Conclusions: No differences were seen in the incremental change in platelet count nor in transfusion reactions when comparing major ABO incompatible platelet transfusions with ABO compatible transfusions in a large study of critically ill children. Studies in larger, prospectively enrolled cohorts should be performed to validate whether ABO matching for platelet transfusions in critically ill children is necessary.

Background: Platelet transfusions are commonly used to prevent bleeding in preterm infants with thrombocytopenia. Data are lacking to provide guidance regarding thresholds for prophylactic platelet transfusions in preterm neonates with severe thrombocytopenia., Methods: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned infants born at less than 34 weeks of gestation in whom severe thrombocytopenia developed to receive a platelet transfusion at platelet-count thresholds of 50,000 per cubic millimeter (high-threshold group) or 25,000 per cubic millimeter (low-threshold group). Bleeding was documented prospectively with the use of a validated bleeding-assessment tool. The primary outcome was death or new major bleeding within 28 days after randomization., Results: A total of 660 infants (median birth weight, 740 g; and median gestational age, 26.6 weeks) underwent randomization. In the high-threshold group, 90% of the infants (296 of 328 infants) received at least one platelet transfusion, as compared with 53% (177 of 331 infants) in the low-threshold group. A new major bleeding episode or death occurred in 26% of the infants (85 of 324) in the high-threshold group and in 19% (61 of 329) in the low-threshold group (odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06 to 2.32; P=0.02). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to rates of serious adverse events (25% in the high-threshold group and 22% in the low-threshold group; odds ratio, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.67)., Conclusions: Among preterm infants with severe thrombocytopenia, those randomly assigned to receive platelet transfusions at a platelet-count threshold of 50,000 per cubic millimeter had a significantly higher rate of death or major bleeding within 28 days after randomization than those who received platelet transfusions at a platelet-count threshold of 25,000 per cubic millimeter. (Funded by the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Research and Development Committee and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN87736839 .).

Objectives: Little is known about platelet transfusions in pediatric critical illness. We sought to describe the epidemiology, indications, and outcomes of platelet transfusions among critically ill children., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: Multicenter (82 PICUs), international (16 countries) from September 2016 to April 2017., Patients: Children ages 3 days to 16 years prescribed a platelet transfusion in the ICU during screening days., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Over 6 weeks, 16,934 patients were eligible, and 559 received at least one platelet transfusion (prevalence, 3.3%). The indications for transfusion included prophylaxis (67%), minor bleeding (21%), and major bleeding (12%). Thirty-four percent of prophylactic platelet transfusions were prescribed when the platelet count was greater than or equal to 50 × 10 cells/L. The median (interquartile range) change in platelet count post transfusion was 48 × 10 cells/L (17-82 × 10 cells/L) for major bleeding, 42 × 10 cells/L (16-80 × 10 cells/L) for prophylactic transfusions to meet a defined threshold, 38 × 10 cells/L (17-72 × 10 cells/L) for minor bleeding, and 25 × 10 cells/L (10-47 × 10 cells/L) for prophylaxis in patients at risk of bleeding from a device. Overall ICU mortality was 25% but varied from 18% to 35% based on indication for transfusion. Upon adjusted analysis, total administered platelet dose was independently associated with increased ICU mortality (odds ratio for each additional 1 mL/kg platelets transfused, 1.002; 95% CI, 1.001-1.003; p = 0.005)., Conclusions: The majority of platelet transfusions are given as prophylaxis to nonbleeding children, and significant variation in platelet thresholds exists. Studies are needed to clarify appropriate indications, with focus on prophylactic transfusions.

Background: There continues to be uncertainty about the optimal approach to documenting bleeding data in platelet transfusion trials, with a desire to apply a common assessment tool across all trials. With this in mind, a consensus bleeding assessment tool (BAT) has been developed by the Biomedical Excellence for Safer Transfusion (BEST) collaborative, based on review of data collection forms used in published randomized trials and following content validation with a range of healthcare professionals at seven haematology centres through BEST members. This study aimed to evaluate reliability and reproducibility of the consensus BAT., Methods: Replicated clinical assessments of bleeding were undertaken by participants with haematological malignancies recruited at four haematology centres in an international, multicentred, observational study. Concordance of repeat assessments was calculated for agreement in site and grade of bleeding observed., Results: Forty patients consented to participate, and 13 trained bleeding assessors collected these data. Bleeding assessments were carried out on 113 separate days. Of all 225 bleeding assessments, 204 were compared for grade concordance, and 160 were compared for site concordance. There was very good grade concordance (83%, 95% confidence interval 74-93%) and good bleeding site concordance (69%, 95% confidence interval 57-79%) in observations of bleeding. Discordance was primarily in relation to assessing skin bleeding., Conclusions: Alongside a structured training programme, levels of concordance for a consensus BAT were high. Researchers using assessment tools for bleeding need to balance comprehensive data collection against potential loss of accuracy for some types of bleeding, such as skin findings., (© 2018 International Society of Blood Transfusion.)

Purpose of Review: Patients with haematological malignancies are a high-user group for blood transfusions. Here, we describe the current evidence on transfusion policies in patients with haematological malignancies, based on recent systematic reviews of RCTs., Recent Findings: Results from six RCTs (1195 participants) suggest that prophylactic platelet transfusions reduce bleeding compared with therapeutic-only use, although the effects varied according to patient diagnosis/treatment plan. A meta-analysis of seven RCTs (1814 participants) reported that low-dose platelet transfusions (1.1 × 10/m ± 25%) were noninferior to standard dose (2.2 × 10/m ± 25%), or high dose (4.4 × 10/m ± 25%). Three RCTs (499 participants) reported that restrictive platelet count thresholds (less than 10 × 10/l) were noninferior to liberal thresholds counts (less than 20-30 × 10/l). For red-cell transfusions, the data from completed RCTs was less advanced. A recent meta-analysis with four RCTs (240 participants) suggested that restrictive thresholds (less than 70-90 g/l) are noninferior to liberal thresholds (less than 80-120 g/l), but with more uncertainty for clinical outcomes., Summary: There is support from randomised trials for using prophylactic platelet transfusions, in low-dose, and with restrictive thresholds. No large completed studies have been published for red-cell transfusions. Many studies overall were arguably underpowered and only offered low-to-medium grade level evidence.

Background: Platelet transfusions are used to prevent and treat bleeding in people who are thrombocytopenic. Despite improvements in donor screening and laboratory testing, a small risk of viral, bacterial, or protozoal contamination of platelets remains. There is also an ongoing risk from newly emerging blood transfusion-transmitted infections for which laboratory tests may not be available at the time of initial outbreak.One solution to reduce the risk of blood transfusion-transmitted infections from platelet transfusion is photochemical pathogen reduction, in which pathogens are either inactivated or significantly depleted in number, thereby reducing the chance of transmission. This process might offer additional benefits, including platelet shelf-life extension, and negate the requirement for gamma-irradiation of platelets. Although current pathogen-reduction technologies have been proven to reduce pathogen load in platelet concentrates, a number of published clinical studies have raised concerns about the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for post-transfusion platelet count recovery and the prevention of bleeding when compared with standard platelets.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding in people of any age requiring platelet transfusions., Search Methods: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 9), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 24 October 2016., Selection Criteria: We included RCTs comparing the transfusion of pathogen-reduced platelets with standard platelets, or comparing different types of pathogen-reduced platelets., Data Collection and Analysis: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane., Main Results: We identified five new trials in this update of the review. A total of 15 trials were eligible for inclusion in this review, 12 completed trials (2075 participants) and three ongoing trials. Ten of the 12 completed trials were included in the original review. We did not identify any RCTs comparing the transfusion of one type of pathogen-reduced platelets with another.Nine trials compared Intercept® pathogen-reduced platelets to standard platelets, two trials compared Mirasol® pathogen-reduced platelets to standard platelets; and one trial compared both pathogen-reduced platelets types to standard platelets. Three RCTs were randomised cross-over trials, and nine were parallel-group trials. Of the 2075 participants enrolled in the trials, 1981 participants received at least one platelet transfusion (1662 participants in Intercept® platelet trials and 319 in Mirasol® platelet trials).One trial included children requiring cardiac surgery (16 participants) or adults requiring a liver transplant (28 participants). All of the other participants were thrombocytopenic individuals who had a haematological or oncological diagnosis. Eight trials included only adults.Four of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, while the remaining eight included studies had some threats to validity.Overall, the quality of the evidence was low to high across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology.We are very uncertain as to whether pathogen-reduced platelets increase the risk of any bleeding (World Health Organization (WHO) Grade 1 to 4) (5 trials, 1085 participants; fixed-effect risk ratio (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 1.15; I 2 = 59%, random-effect RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38; I 2 = 59%; low-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of clinically significant bleeding complications (WHO Grade 2 or higher) (5 trials, 1392 participants; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.25; I 2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), and there is probably no difference in the risk of developing severe bleeding (WHO Grade 3 or higher) (6 trials, 1495 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.02; I 2 = 32%; moderate-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of all-cause mortality at 4 to 12 weeks (6 trials, 1509 participants; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.29; I 2 = 26%; moderate-quality evidence).There is probably no difference between pathogen-reduced platelets and standard platelets in the incidence of serious adverse events (7 trials, 1340 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.35; I 2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). However, no bacterial transfusion-transmitted infections occurred in the six trials that reported this outcome.Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions had an increased risk of developing platelet refractoriness (7 trials, 1525 participants; RR 2.94, 95% CI 2.08 to 4.16; I 2 = 0%; high-quality evidence), though the definition of platelet refractoriness differed between trials.Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions required more platelet transfusions (6 trials, 1509 participants; mean difference (MD) 1.23, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.61; I 2 = 27%; high-quality evidence), and there was probably a shorter time interval between transfusions (6 trials, 1489 participants; MD -0.42, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.32; I 2 = 29%; moderate-quality evidence). Participants who received pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions had a lower 24-hour corrected-count increment (7 trials, 1681 participants; MD -3.02, 95% CI -3.57 to -2.48; I 2 = 15%; high-quality evidence).None of the studies reported quality of life.We did not evaluate any economic outcomes.There was evidence of subgroup differences in multiple transfusion trials between the two pathogen-reduced platelet technologies assessed in this review (Intercept® and Mirasol®) for all-cause mortality and the interval between platelet transfusions (favouring Intercept®)., Authors' Conclusions: Findings from this review were based on 12 trials, and of the 1981 participants who received a platelet transfusion only 44 did not have a haematological or oncological diagnosis.In people with haematological or oncological disorders who are thrombocytopenic due to their disease or its treatment, we found high-quality evidence that pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions increase the risk of platelet refractoriness and the platelet transfusion requirement. We found moderate-quality evidence that pathogen-reduced platelet transfusions do not affect all-cause mortality, the risk of clinically significant or severe bleeding, or the risk of a serious adverse event. There was insufficient evidence for people with other diagnoses.All three ongoing trials are in adults (planned recruitment 1375 participants) with a haematological or oncological diagnosis.

Allogeneic platelet transfusions are widely used for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in thrombocytopenia. Recent evidence suggests platelet transfusions have limited efficacy and are associated with uncertain immunomodulatory risks and concerns about viral or bacterial transmission. Alternatives to transfusion are a well-recognised tenet of Patient Blood Management, but there has been less focus on different strategies to reduce bleeding risk by comparison to platelet transfusion. Direct alternatives to platelet transfusion include agents to stimulate endogenous platelet production (thrombopoietin mimetics), optimising platelet adhesion to endothelium by treating anaemia or increasing von Willebrand factor levels (desmopressin), increasing formation of cross-linked fibrinogen (activated recombinant factor VII, fibrinogen concentrate or recombinant factor XIII), decreasing fibrinolysis (tranexamic acid or epsilon aminocaproic acid) or using artificial or modified platelets (cryopreserved platelets, lyophilised platelets, haemostatic particles, liposomes, engineered nanoparticles or infusible platelet membranes). The evidence base to support the use of these alternatives is variable, but an area of active research. Much of the current randomised controlled trial focus is on evaluation of the use of thrombopoietin mimetics and anti-fibrinolytics. It is also recognised that one alternative strategy to platelet transfusion is choosing not to transfuse at all., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Several clinical scenarios for plasma transfusion are repeatedly identified in audits, including treatment of bleeding in association with laboratory evidence of coagulopathy, correction of disseminated intravascular coagulation, prevention of intraventricular hemorrhage, management of critically ill neonates (eg, during sepsis or as a volume expander), or correction of markers of prolonged coagulation in the absence of bleeding. The findings of at least one national audit of transfusion practice indicated that almost half of plasma transfusions are given to neonates with abnormal coagulation values with no evidence of active bleeding, despite the limited evidence base to support the effectiveness of this practice. Plasma transfusions to neonates should be considered in the clinical context of bleeding (eg, vitamin K dependent), disseminated intravascular coagulation, and very rare inherited deficiencies of coagulation factors. There seems to be no role for prophylactic plasma to prevent intraventricular hemorrhage or for use as a volume expander., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in people with thrombocytopenia. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy since the mid-1970s, some areas continue to provoke debate especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding., Objectives: To determine whether agents that can be used as alternatives, or adjuncts, to platelet transfusions for people with haematological malignancies undergoing intensive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation are safe and effective at preventing bleeding., Search Methods: We searched 11 bibliographic databases and four ongoing trials databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE (OvidSP, 1946 to 19 May 2016), Embase (OvidSP, 1974 to 19 May 2016), PubMed (e-publications only: searched 19 May 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP and the ISRCTN Register (searched 19 May 2016)., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials in people with haematological malignancies undergoing intensive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation who were allocated to either an alternative to platelet transfusion (artificial platelet substitutes, platelet-poor plasma, fibrinogen concentrate, recombinant activated factor VII, desmopressin (DDAVP), or thrombopoietin (TPO) mimetics) or a comparator (placebo, standard care or platelet transfusion). We excluded studies of antifibrinolytic drugs, as they were the focus of another review., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors screened all electronically derived citations and abstracts of papers identified by the review search strategy. Two review authors assessed risk of bias in the included studies and extracted data independently., Main Results: We identified 16 eligible trials. Four trials are ongoing and two have been completed but the results have not yet been published (trial completion dates: April 2012 to February 2017). Therefore, the review included 10 trials in eight references with 554 participants. Six trials (336 participants) only included participants with acute myeloid leukaemia undergoing intensive chemotherapy, two trials (38 participants) included participants with lymphoma undergoing intensive chemotherapy and two trials (180 participants) reported participants undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Men and women were equally well represented in the trials. The age range of participants included in the trials was from 16 years to 81 years. All trials took place in high-income countries. The manufacturers of the agent sponsored eight trials that were under investigation, and two trials did not report their source of funding.No trials assessed artificial platelet substitutes, fibrinogen concentrate, recombinant activated factor VII or desmopressin.Nine trials compared a TPO mimetic to placebo or standard care; seven of these used pegylated recombinant human megakaryocyte growth and differentiation factor (PEG-rHuMGDF) and two used recombinant human thrombopoietin (rhTPO).One trial compared platelet-poor plasma to platelet transfusion.We considered that all the trials included in this review were at high risk of bias and meta-analysis was not possible in seven trials due to problems with the way data were reported.We are very uncertain whether TPO mimetics reduce the number of participants with any bleeding episode (odds ratio (OR) 0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 1.62, one trial, 120 participants, very low quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether TPO mimetics reduce the risk of a life-threatening bleed after 30 days (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.06 to 33.14, three trials, 209 participants, very low quality evidence); or after 90 days (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.37, one trial, 120 participants, very low quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether TPO mimetics reduce platelet transfusion requirements after 30 days (mean difference -3.00 units, 95% CI -5.39 to -0.61, one trial, 120 participants, very low quality evidence). No deaths occurred in either group after 30 days (one trial, 120 participants, very low quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether TPO mimetics reduce all-cause mortality at 90 days (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.24 to 4.20, one trial, 120 participants, very low quality evidence). No thromboembolic events occurred for participants treated with TPO mimetics or control at 30 days (two trials, 209 participants, very low quality evidence). We found no trials that looked at: number of days on which bleeding occurred, time from randomisation to first bleed or quality of life.One trial with 18 participants compared platelet-poor plasma transfusion with platelet transfusion. We are very uncertain whether platelet-poor plasma reduces the number of participants with any bleeding episode (OR 16.00, 95% CI 1.32 to 194.62, one trial, 18 participants, very low quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether platelet-poor plasma reduces the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding (OR 4.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 28.40, one trial, 18 participants, very low quality evidence). We found no trials that looked at: number of days on which bleeding occurred, time from randomisation to first bleed, number of platelet transfusions, all-cause mortality, thromboembolic events or quality of life., Authors' Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to determine if platelet-poor plasma or TPO mimetics reduce bleeding for participants with haematological malignancies undergoing intensive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation. To detect a decrease in the proportion of participants with clinically significant bleeding from 12 in 100 to 6 in 100 would require a trial containing at least 708 participants (80% power, 5% significance). The six ongoing trials will provide additional information about the TPO mimetic comparison (424 participants) but this will still be underpowered to demonstrate this level of reduction in bleeding. None of the included or ongoing trials include children. There are no completed or ongoing trials assessing artificial platelet substitutes, fibrinogen concentrate, recombinant activated factor VII or desmopressin in people undergoing intensive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation for haematological malignancies., Competing Interests: Declarations of Interest MD: none declared. LE: partly funded by the NIHR Cochrane Programme Grant - Safe and Appropriate Use of Blood Components. CD: none declared. MT: partly funded by the NIHR Cochrane Programme Grant - Safe and Appropriate Use of Blood Components. SH: partly funded by the NIHR Cochrane Programme Grant - Safe and Appropriate Use of Blood Components. SS: none declared. MM: none declared.

Clinical Question: What is the optimal platelet count threshold for prophylactic platelet transfusions to minimize bleeding, platelet use, and adverse clinical outcomes in thrombocytopenic patients with hematological malignant neoplasms?, Bottom Line: Maintaining a higher platelet count threshold (≤20 × 109/L or ≤30 × 109/L) was not associated with less bleeding than the current standard (≤10 × 109/L), but required more platelet transfusions (low-quality evidence).

Patients with hematologic malignancies frequently become thrombocytopenic as a result of their underlying malignancy or treatments, including cytotoxic chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and are at increased risk of hemorrhage. Prophylactic platelet transfusions are aimed at preventing severe or life-threatening hemorrhage. This review summarizes recent evidence, including the need for prophylactic platelet transfusions, the optimal dose, platelet transfusion triggers, and risk factors for bleeding. It also discusses controversies surrounding platelet transfusions in this population., (Crown Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: People with a low platelet count (thrombocytopenia) often require lumbar punctures or an epidural anaesthetic. Lumbar punctures can be diagnostic (haematological malignancies, epidural haematoma, meningitis) or therapeutic (spinal anaesthetic, administration of chemotherapy). Epidural catheters are placed for administration of epidural anaesthetic. Current practice in many countries is to correct thrombocytopenia with platelet transfusions prior to lumbar punctures and epidural anaesthesia, in order to mitigate the risk of serious procedure-related bleeding. However, the platelet count threshold recommended prior to these procedures varies significantly from country to country. This indicates significant uncertainty among clinicians of the correct management of these patients. The risk of bleeding appears to be low but if bleeding occurs it can be very serious (spinal haematoma). Therefore, people may be exposed to the risks of a platelet transfusion without any obvious clinical benefit., Objectives: To assess the effects of different platelet transfusion thresholds prior to a lumbar puncture or epidural anaesthesia in people with thrombocytopenia (low platelet count)., Search Methods: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950) and ongoing trial databases to 3 March 2016., 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 of any age with thrombocytopenia requiring insertion of a lumbar puncture needle or epidural catheter. We only included RCTs published in English., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane., Main Results: We identified no completed or ongoing RCTs in English. We did not exclude any completed or ongoing RCTs because they were published in another language., Authors' Conclusions: There is no evidence from RCTs to determine what is the correct platelet transfusion threshold prior to insertion of a lumbar puncture needle or epidural catheter. There are no ongoing registered RCTs assessing the effects of different platelet transfusion thresholds prior to the insertion of a lumbar puncture or epidural anaesthesia in people with thrombocytopenia. Any future RCT would need to be very large to detect a difference in the risk of bleeding. We would need to design a study with at least 47,030 participants to be able to detect an increase in the number of people who had major procedure-related bleeding from 1 in 1000 to 2 in 1000.

This conference first addressed aspects of component quality, highlighting the role of pathogen inactivation, the role of PAS or plasma in prolonging platelet viability and acceptable storage deviations. A series of talks on the medical use of platelets covered the role of platelet transfusion in preventing intracranial haemorrhage, platelet prophylaxis in haematological patients and the new trial of the HLA Matchmaker programme to provide epitope-matched platelets. The session on the surgical use of platelets considered the role of platelet transfusions in patients on anti-platelet agents, major trauma and interventional procedures and also the scope for tests of platelet function to direct therapy. The conference concluded with a panel discussion highlighting key areas of general interest, including the clinical use of platelets and near patient platelet function tests., (© 2016 British Blood Transfusion Society.)

Background: Patients with a low platelet count (thrombocytopenia) often require the insertion of central lines (central venous catheters (CVCs)). CVCs have a number of uses; these include: administration of chemotherapy; intensive monitoring and treatment of critically-ill patients; administration of total parenteral nutrition; and long-term intermittent intravenous access for patients requiring repeated treatments. Current practice in many countries is to correct thrombocytopenia with platelet transfusions prior to CVC insertion, in order to mitigate the risk of serious procedure-related bleeding. However, the platelet count threshold recommended prior to CVC insertion varies significantly from country to country. This indicates significant uncertainty among clinicians of the correct management of these patients. The risk of bleeding after a central line insertion appears to be low if an ultrasound-guided technique is used. Patients may therefore be exposed to the risks of a platelet transfusion without any obvious clinical benefit., Objectives: To assess the effects of different platelet transfusion thresholds prior to the insertion of a central line in patients with thrombocytopenia (low platelet count)., Search Methods: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950) and ongoing trial databases to 23 February 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 patients of any age with thrombocytopenia requiring insertion of a CVC., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration., Main Results: One RCT was identified that compared different platelet transfusion thresholds prior to insertion of a CVC in people with chronic liver disease. This study is still recruiting participants (expected recruitment: up to 165 participants) and is due to be completed in December 2017. There were no completed studies. There were no studies that compared no platelet transfusions to a platelet transfusion threshold., Authors' Conclusions: There is no evidence from RCTs to determine whether platelet transfusions are required prior to central line insertion in patients with thrombocytopenia, and, if a platelet transfusion is required, what is the correct platelet transfusion threshold. Further randomised trials with robust methodology are required to develop the optimal transfusion strategy for such patients. The one ongoing RCT involving people with cirrhosis will not be able to answer this review's questions, because it is a small study that assesses one patient group and does not address all of the comparisons included in this review. To detect an increase in the proportion of participants who had major bleeding from 1 in 100 to 2 in 100 would require a study containing at least 4634 participants (80% power, 5% significance).

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.

Platelet refractoriness can represent a significant clinical problem that complicates the provision of platelet transfusions, is associated with adverse clinical outcomes and increases health care costs. Although it is most frequently due to non-immune platelet consumption, immunological factors are also often involved. Human leucocyte antigen (HLA) alloimmunization is the most important immune cause. Despite the fact that systematic reviews of the clinical studies evaluating different techniques for selecting HLA compatible platelets have not been powered to demonstrate improved clinical outcomes, platelet refractoriness is currently managed by the provision of HLA-matched or cross matched platelets. This review will address a practical approach to the diagnosis and management of platelet refractoriness while highlighting on-going dilemmas and knowledge gaps., (© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

A recent randomized trial (TOPPS) compared prophylactic platelet transfusions (for counts <10×10(9)/L) with a strategy of no-prophylaxis in adults with hematologic malignancies. Seventy percent of enrolled patients received an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Statistical models were developed to explore which patient factors or clinical characteristics are important prognostic factors for bleeding. These models were presented for baseline characteristics and for recurrent analysis of bleeding to assess the risks of World Health Organization grade 2-4 bleeding on any given day. Additional analyses explored the importance of fever. Treatment plan (chemotherapy/allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant), female sex, and treatment arm (no-prophylaxis) were significantly associated with an increased number of days of bleeding. The number of days with a platelet count <10×109/L was significantly associated with a grade 2-4 bleed (P<0.0001). Patients with a temperature of at least 38°C had the highest hazard of a grade 2-4 bleed (hazard ratio: 1.7, 95% confidence interval: 1.3 to 2.4, compared with the risk in patients with a temperature <37.5°C). There was no evidence that minor bleeding predicted a grade 2-4 bleed. The results highlighted the limited role of correction of thrombocytopenia by platelet transfusion in reducing the risk of bleeding. Clinically stable patients undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation had the lowest risk of bleeding and benefited least from prophylactic platelet transfusions. Prospective studies are required to address the usefulness of risk factors to support better targeted platelet transfusions. TOPPS Controlled-Trials.com number ISRCTN08758735., (Copyright© Ferrata Storti Foundation.)

Background: This cost analysis uses data from a randomized trial comparing a no prophylaxis versus prophylactic platelet (PLT) transfusion policy (counts <10 × 10(9) /L) in adult patients with hematologic malignancies. Results are presented for all patients and separately for autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) (autoHSCT) and chemotherapy/allogeneic HSCT (chemo/alloHSCT) patients., Study Design and Methods: Data were collected to 30 days on PLT and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions, major bleeds, serious adverse events, critical care, and hematology ward stay. Data were costed using 2011 to 2012 UK unit costs and converted into US$. Sensitivity analyses were performed on uncertain cost variables., Results: Across the whole trial no prophylaxis saved costs compared to prophylaxis: -$1760 per patient (95% confidence interval [CI], -$3250 to -$249; p < 0.05). For autoHSCT patients there was no cost difference between arms: -$110 per patient (95% CI, -$1648 to $1565; p = 0.89). For chemo/alloHSCT patients no prophylaxis cost significantly less than prophylaxis: -$5686 per patient (95% CI, -$8580 to -$2853; p < 0.01). The cost impact of no prophylaxis differed significantly between subgroups. Sensitivity analyses varying daily treatment costs and ward stay for chemo/alloHSCT patients reduced cost differences to -$941 per patient (p = 0.21) across the whole trial and -$2927 per patient (p < 0.05) in chemo/alloHSCT subgroup., Conclusions: It is unclear whether a no-prophylaxis policy saves costs overall. In chemo/alloHSCT patients cost savings are apparent but their magnitude is sensitive to a number of variables and must be considered alongside clinical data showing increased bleeding rates. In autoHSCT patients savings generated through lower PLT use in no-prophylaxis arm were offset by cost increases elsewhere, for example, additional RBC transfusions. Cost-effectiveness analyses of alternative PLT transfusion policies simultaneously considering costs and patient-reported outcomes are warranted., (© 2014 AABB.)

Background: A recent randomized trial compared a policy of no prophylaxis with a policy of prophylactic platelet (PLT) transfusions at counts of fewer than 10 × 10(9) /L in patients with hematologic malignancies. The results suggested the effectiveness of prophylactic PLT transfusions may vary according to patient diagnosis and treatment plan., Study Design and Methods: This article presents full subgroup analyses and compares treatment effects between autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (autoHSCT; n = 421) and chemotherapy/allogeneic HSCT (chemo/alloHSCT; n = 179) patients., Results: Prespecified subgroup analysis found that the reduction in proportion of patients experiencing WHO Grade 2 to 4 bleeds (main trial outcome) seen in the prophylaxis arm was of greater magnitude in chemo/alloHSCT than autoHSCT patients (interaction p = 0.04). Analysis of secondary outcomes showed a shorter time to first bleeding episode with no prophylaxis in the chemo/alloHSCT group (hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% confidence interval CI, 1.21-2.79; p = 0.004) compared to the autoHSCT group (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.85-1.48; p = 0.4; interaction p = 0.08). The increased number of days with Grade 2 to 4 bleeds with a no-prophylaxis policy was similar in chemo/alloHSCT (rate ratio, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.10-3.26) and in autoHSCT patients (rate ratio, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.04-1.97). Both subgroups showed significant reductions in PLT transfusions with a no-prophylaxis strategy., Conclusion: There is evidence that the effectiveness of prophylactic PLT transfusions may differ between subgroups, with chemo/alloHSCT patients receiving prophylactic PLT transfusions appearing to show a greater reduction in bleeding outcomes compared to patients following a no-prophylaxis policy., (© 2014 Crown copyright. This article Impact of Prophylactic Platelet Transfusions on Bleeding Events in Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: A Sub-group Analysis of a Randomised Trial was written by Stanworth, Estcourt, Llewelyn, Murphy, & Wood. It is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.)

Thrombocytopenia is a very common hematological abnormality found in newborns, especially in preterm neonates. Two subgroups can be distinguished: early thrombocytopenia, occurring within the first 72 hours of life, and late thrombocytopenia, occurring after the first 72 hours of life. Early thrombocytopenia is associated with intrauterine growth restriction, whereas late thrombocytopenia is caused mainly by sepsis and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). Platelet transfusions are the hallmark of the treatment of neonatal thrombocytopenia. Most of these transfusions are prophylactic, which means they are given in the absence of bleeding. However, the efficacy of these transfusions in preventing bleeding has never been proven. In addition, risks of platelet transfusion seem to be more pronounced in preterm neonates. Because of lack of data, platelet transfusion guidelines differ widely between countries. This review summarizes the current understanding of etiology and management of neonatal thrombocytopenia.

Background: Many platelet (PLT) transfusion trials now use bleeding as a primary outcome; however, previous studies have shown a wide variation in the amount (5%-70%) and type of bleeding documented. Differences in the way bleeding has been identified, recorded, and graded may account for some of this variability. This study's aim was to compare trials' method to document and grade bleeding., Study Design and Methods: Data were collected via three methods: a review of study publications, study case report forms, and a questionnaire sent to the authors. Authors of randomized controlled trials of PLT transfusion that used bleeding as an outcome measure were identified from the searches reported by two recent systematic reviews. Twenty-four authors were contacted, and 13 agreed to participate. Data submitted were reviewed and summarized., Results: More recent studies with trained bleeding assessors, detailed documentation, and expanded grading systems have reported higher overall levels of bleeding. The World Health Organization grading system was widely used to grade bleeding, but there was no consistency in the bleeding grade definitions. For example, bleeding classified as Grade 2 in some studies (spreading petechiae) was classified as Grade 1 in other studies., Conclusions: This study has highlighted differences in the method of recording and grading bleeding, which may account for some of the variation in reported bleeding rates. To ensure that differences between studies can be attributed to trial interventions or types of participant included, this study group is developing consensus bleeding definitions, a standardized approach to record and grade bleeding, and guidance notes to educate and train bleeding assessors., (© 2013 American Association of Blood Banks.)

Background: The effectiveness of platelet transfusions to prevent bleeding in patients with hematologic cancers remains unclear. This trial assessed whether a policy of not giving prophylactic platelet transfusions was as effective and safe as a policy of providing prophylaxis., Methods: We conducted this randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial at 14 centers in the United Kingdom and Australia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive, or not to receive, prophylactic platelet transfusions when morning platelet counts were less than 10×10(9) per liter. Eligible patients were persons 16 years of age or older who were receiving chemotherapy or undergoing stem-cell transplantation and who had or were expected to have thrombocytopenia. The primary end point was bleeding of World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2, 3, or 4 up to 30 days after randomization., Results: A total of 600 patients (301 in the no-prophylaxis group and 299 in the prophylaxis group) underwent randomization between 2006 and 2011. Bleeding of WHO grade 2, 3, or 4 occurred in 151 of 300 patients (50%) in the no-prophylaxis group, as compared with 128 of 298 (43%) in the prophylaxis group (adjusted difference in proportions, 8.4 percentage points; 90% confidence interval, 1.7 to 15.2; P=0.06 for noninferiority). Patients in the no-prophylaxis group had more days with bleeding and a shorter time to the first bleeding episode than did patients in the prophylaxis group. Platelet use was markedly reduced in the no-prophylaxis group. A prespecified subgroup analysis identified similar rates of bleeding in the two study groups among patients undergoing autologous stem-cell transplantation., Conclusions: The results of our study support the need for the continued use of prophylaxis with platelet transfusion and show the benefit of such prophylaxis for reducing bleeding, as compared with no prophylaxis. A significant number of patients had bleeding despite prophylaxis. (Funded by the National Health Service Blood and Transplant Research and Development Committee and the Australian Red Cross Blood Service; TOPPS Controlled-Trials.com number, ISRCTN08758735.).

Background: Platelet (PLT) transfusions are widely used, but few studies have described patterns of use in critical care., Study Design and Methods: As part of a prospective multicenter observational study of all sequentially admitted patients to UK general intensive care units (ICUs) over 8 weeks, daily data were collected throughout admission on frequency of thrombocytopenia and use of PLT transfusions, in addition to clinical outcomes, including bleeding., Results: There were 1923 admissions recruited across 29 ICUs for analysis (96.6% of all eligible admissions). The period prevalences of severe thrombocytopenia (<50 × 10(9) /L) for the entire ICU stay were 12.4% (234/1881) and 13.7% (263/1914) when the 24 hours before admission was also included. A total of 35.4% of patients who experienced severe thrombocytopenia died in the ICU. A total of 169 patients (9% of study population) received 534 units of transfused PLTs (median number of units per patient admission was 2; interquartile range, 1-3; maximum, 38). Pretransfusion PLT counts were more than 50 × 10(9) for 40% of PLT transfusions overall, and even when no clinically significant bleeding was recorded on the day of transfusion, the lowest recorded PLT count was more than 50 × 10(9) for 34% of transfusions. There was evidence of only modest increments in PLT count., Conclusion: Thrombocytopenia is common in critical care, but there is wide variation in PLT transfusion use. Patients commonly received PLT transfusions on days without clinically significant hemorrhage. The high prevalence of thrombocytopenia in the critically ill population and inconsistent patterns of PLT transfusions indicate the importance of improving the evidence base for PLT use., (© 2012 American Association of Blood Banks.)

Survival rates for infants born prematurely have improved significantly, in part due to better supportive care such as RBC transfusion. The role of platelet transfusions in neonates is more controversial. Neonatal thrombocytopenia is common in premature infants. The primary causal factors are intrauterine growth restriction/maternal hypertension, in which the infant presents with thrombocytopenia soon after birth, and sepsis/necrotizing enterocolitis, which are the common morbidities associated with thrombocytopenia in neonates > 72 hours of age. There is no evidence of a relationship between platelet count and occurrence of major hemorrhage, and cardiorespiratory problems are considered the main etiological factors in the development of intraventricular and periventricular hemorrhage in the neonatal period. Platelet transfusions are used commonly as prophylaxis in premature neonates with thrombocytopenia. However, there is widespread variation in the pretransfusion thresholds for platelet count and evidence of marked disparities in platelet transfusion practice between hospitals and countries. Platelet transfusions are biological agents and as such are associated with risks. Unlike other patient groups, specifically patients with hematological malignancies, there have been no recent clinical trials undertaken comparing different thresholds for platelet transfusion in premature neonates. Therefore, there is no evidence base with which to inform safe and effective practice for prophylactic platelet transfusions. There is a need for randomized controlled trials to define the optimal use of platelet transfusions in premature neonates, who at present are transfused heavily with platelets.

The goal of platelet transfusions is to prevent severe and life-threatening bleeding in patients with thrombocytopenia. This aim needs to be balanced against the risks associated with platelet transfusions as well as the challenge of maintaining an adequate supply. This review summarizes the recent evidence regarding the clinical use of platelet transfusions in haematology patients, concentrating on the topics that still continue to provoke debate. These include the optimal dose for platelet transfusions and the relative safety of a 'therapeutic only' platelet transfusion strategy compared to the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions. The type of platelet product has been the subject of two recent systematic reviews. The results of these reviews will be discussed as well as their implications for current practice., (Published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.)

Purpose of Review: This review highlights the recent research on the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions, which is a topic that still provokes controversy. Over the last 12 months, there have been several studies with important new findings., Recent Findings: Two randomized controlled trials compared different doses of prophylactic platelet transfusions in patients with haematological malignancies. In neonates, platelet mass has been used as a trigger for prophylactic platelet transfusions rather than the morning platelet count; and interim results of a therapeutic vs. a prophylactic platelet-transfusion strategy in acute myeloblastic leukaemia have been published., Summary: Low-dose prophylactic platelet transfusions are as effective in the prevention of bleeding as high-dose platelets. Fewer platelets were transfused but more frequent transfusions were required. Platelet mass as a transfusion trigger led to a lower prophylactic platelet requirement and did not increase the risk of bleeding in thrombocytopenic neonates. The interim results of the trial of a therapeutic vs. a prophylactic transfusion strategy were unable to provide any firm conclusion about their relative effectiveness and further information is required from ongoing trials.

Although considerable advances have been made in many aspects of platelet transfusion therapy in the last 30 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, including the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding in patients with bone marrow failure. We have designed a randomized controlled trial to compare prophylactic platelet use with a threshold of a platelet count of 10 x 10(9)/L with no prophylaxis in adult thrombocytopenic patients with hematologic malignancies. The trial question is whether a no-prophylactic policy for the use of platelet transfusions in patients with hematologic malignancies is not inferior to a threshold prophylactic policy at 10 x 10(9)/L, for bleeding at World Health Organization (WHO) grade 2, 3, or 4, up to 30 days from randomization. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients who have a significant clinical bleed, defined as WHO grade 2 or higher up to 30 days from randomization. Subsidiary clinical outcome measures include time to first bleed and a descriptive analysis of all severe bleeds. A bleeding assessment form is completed daily for all study subjects until day 30 from randomization. Minor modifications were made to the definitions at WHO grades 1 and 2 for petechiae and duration of nose bleeds, after piloting of the bleeding assessment forms. This study has been designed as a 2-stage randomized trial with an interim analysis planned after a minimum of 100 patients had been randomized and had completed their period of observation. Patients have initially been enrolled through 3 United Kingdom hematology centers. The interim analysis has been completed, and the results have confirmed a final sample size of 600 patients. Recruitment is now being extended to other centers in United Kingdom and Australia. Local research nurses are not blinded to treatment allocation, but a number of measures to reduce risk of assessment bias include repeated education around standard operating procedures, common definitions, and duplication of assessments. The expected completion date for the 5-year study is December 2011., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

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.