Platelet transfusion for patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Platelet transfusion is a critical and often necessary aspect of managing cancer. Low platelet counts frequently lead to bleeding complications; however, the drugs used to combat malignancy commonly lead to decreased production and destruction of the very cell whose function is essential to stop bleeding. The transfusion of allogeneic platelet products helps to promote hemostasis, but alloimmunization may make it difficult to manage other complications associated with cancer. METHODS: The literature relating to platelet transfusion in patients with cancer was reviewed. RESULTS: Platelet storage, dosing, transfusion indications, and transfusion response are essential topics for health care professionals to understand because many patients with cancer will require platelet transfusions during the course of treatment. The workup and differentiation of non-immune-mediated compared with immune-mediated platelet refractoriness are vital because platelet management is different between types of refractoriness. CONCLUSIONS: A combination of appropriate utilization of platelet inventory and laboratory testing coupled with communication between those caring for patients with cancer and those providing blood products is essential for effective patient care.

Patterns of platelet response in idiopathic TTP/HUS: frequency of declining platelet counts with plasma exchange and the recognition and significance of a pseudo refractory state.

For thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP), daily plasma exchange (TPE) is typically discontinued when the platelet count normalizes (>150 x 10(9)/L). We observed a decline in platelet count during TPE and in patients who appeared pseudo-refractory because of a platelet count plateau (100-150 10(9)/L range). In the present study, we evaluated platelet count trends in TTP patients. Retrospective review of TTP patients from 01/1999 to 12/2004 was completed. Patients were categorized based on platelet count trends: Group I, counts rose then decreased to levels <100 x 10(9)/L; Group II, counts declined following TPE initiation; Group III, counts rose continuously; Group IV, counts decreased after the count was >100 x 10(9)/L. Additionally, we identified pseudo-refractory patients caused by a platelet count plateau (>100 x 10(9)/L but <150 x 10(9)/L). We identified 60 TTP patients. Within Group I (17 patients/17 series/19.1% of total), the mean decrease in platelet count was 67.3% +/- 22.1% following initial rise. Within Group II (24 patients/25 series/28.1% of total), the mean decrease was 28% +/- 5.3% following presentation. Group III included 31 patients/39 series (43.8% of the total). Within Group IV (seven patients/eight series/9.0% of total), the mean decrease was 17.4% +/- 12.6% following a sustained rise >100 x 10(9)/L. With a declining platelet count and daily TPE, it is generally sufficient to stay the course and the decline will reverse. Our limited experience with pseudo-refractory patients supports discontinuing TPE when counts plateau between 100 and 150 x 10(9)/L when a therapy goal is a platelet count of 150 x 10(9)/L. Recognition of this pseudo-refractory state can minimize the risks of prolonged TPE and the risks of adjunct interventions.