Phlebotomy resulting in controlled hypovolaemia to prevent blood loss in major hepatic resections (PRICE-1): a pilot randomized clinical trial for feasibility.

BACKGROUND: Major liver resection is associated with blood loss and transfusion. Observational data suggest that hypovolaemic phlebotomy can reduce these risks. This feasibility RCT compared hypovolaemic phlebotomy with the standard of care, to inform a future multicentre trial. METHODS: Patients undergoing major liver resections were enrolled between June 2016 and January 2018. Randomization was done during surgery and the surgeons were blinded to the group allocation. For hypovolaemic phlebotomy, 7-10 ml per kg whole blood was removed, without intravenous fluid replacement. Co-primary outcomes were feasibility and estimated blood loss (EBL). RESULTS: A total of 62 patients were randomized to hypovolaemic phlebotomy (31) or standard care (31), at a rate of 3·1 patients per month, thus meeting the co-primary feasibility endpoint. The median EBL difference was -111 ml (P = 0·456). Among patients at high risk of transfusion, the median EBL difference was -448 ml (P = 0·069). Secondary feasibility endpoints were met: enrolment, blinding and target phlebotomy (mean(s.d.) 7·6(1·9) ml per kg). Blinded surgeons perceived that parenchymal resection was easier with hypovolaemic phlebotomy than standard care (16 of 31 versus 10 of 31 respectively), and guessed that hypovolaemic phlebotomy was being used with an accuracy of 65 per cent (20 of 31). There was no significant difference in overall complications (10 of 31 versus 15 of 31 patients), major complications or transfusion. Among those at high risk, transfusion was required in two of 15 versus three of nine patients (P = 0·326). CONCLUSION: Endpoints were met successfully, but no difference in EBL was found in this feasibility study. A multicentre trial (PRICE-2) powered to identify a difference in perioperative blood transfusion is justified. Registration number: NCT02548910 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

ANTECEDENTES: La resección hepática mayor se asocia con pérdida de sangre y necesidad de transfusión. Datos observacionales sugieren que la flebotomía hipovolémica (hypovolaemic phlebotomy, HP) puede reducir estos riesgos. Este ensayo clínico aleatorizado (randomised clinical trial, RCT) de factibilidad comparó HP con el tratamiento estándar con el fin de proporcionar información para un futuro ensayo multicéntrico. MÉTODOS: Se reclutaron pacientes sometidos a resecciones hepáticas mayores entre junio 2016 y enero 2018. La aleatorización se realizó durante el intraoperatorio y los cirujanos eran ciegos al resultado de la asignación. Para la HP, se extrajeron 7-10 mL/kg de sangre total, sin reposición de líquidos intravenosos. Los resultados primarios fueron la factibilidad y la pérdida de sangre estimada (estimated blood loss, EBL). RESULTADOS: Un total de 62 pacientes se aleatorizaron a HP (n = 31) y a tratamiento estándar (n = 31), a un ritmo de 3,1 pacientes/mes, cumpliendo el co-objetivo primario de la factibilidad. La mediana de la diferencia de EBL fue 11 mL (P = 0,46). Entre los pacientes con alto riesgo de transfusión, la mediana de la diferencia de EBL fue 448 mL (P = 0,069). Los objetivos secundarios de factibilidad se consiguieron: reclutamiento (89%), cegamiento (98%), y objetivo de la flebotomía (7,6 ± 1,9 mL/kg). Los cirujanos que fueron cegados percibieron que la resección fue más fácil con la HP (52% versus 32%) y acertaron el uso de HP con una exactitud del 65%. No hubo diferencia significativa en las complicaciones globales (32% versus 48%), complicaciones mayores y transfusión. Entre aquellos pacientes de alto riesgo, la trasfusión se realizó en un 13% versus 33% (P = 0,33). CONCLUSIÓN: Se cumplieron los objetivos, pero no se identificó diferencia en EBL en este estudio de factibilidad. Ello justifica un ensayo multicéntrico (PRICE-2) con poder estadístico para identificar una diferencia en la transfusión de sangre perioperatoria.

The epidemiology of multicomponent blood transfusion: a systematic review.

We performed a systematic review to describe the prevalence of multicomponent blood transfusion and, as a secondary objective, to determine patient characteristics and outcomes associated with multicomponent transfusion. There is a lack of literature on the epidemiology of multicomponent transfusion as most studies concentrate on a single blood product and its utilisation. Patient care and blood management can be optimised by better understanding the patients who receive multicomponent transfusions. The databases Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews were searched. Observational cohort and cross-sectional studies of hospital patients reporting on multicomponent transfusion prevalence or on patient characteristics and outcomes associated with multicomponent transfusion were included. A descriptive synthesis of studies was performed. A total of 37 eligible studies were included. It was found that multicomponent transfusion prevalence varied greatly by patient population and by the combination of blood products given in the multicomponent transfusion. Multicomponent-transfused patients included burn, cardiac surgery, liver surgery and transplant, cancer, infectious diseases, trauma and intensive care unit patients. Five studies found associations between multicomponent transfusion and adverse health outcomes; however, these findings are likely confounded by indication. The overall quality of evidence was low given a fair-to-poor individual study quality, inconsistent multicomponent transfusion prevalence estimates and confounding by indication. Further research is needed to better understand the epidemiology of multicomponent transfusion, including studies on multicomponent transfusion in haematological cancer patients and studies looking for patient characteristics that can better predict multicomponent transfusion need.

Major ABO-incompatible BMT: isohemagglutinin reduction with plasma exchange is safe and avoids graft manipulation.

The impact of donor-recipient ABO incompatibility on long-term BMT outcomes remains controversial. A common strategy is to deplete the donor marrow of red cells, although this variably reduces the number of CD34+ cells. This 10-year retrospective study assessed the impact of recipient plasma exchange in major ABO-incompatible allogeneic BMT on outcomes and survival. Target Ab titres were ≤ 1:4 for anti-A and ≤ 1:8 for anti-B. Patients with higher titres underwent plasma exchange before marrow infusion. Of 133 patients who underwent allogeneic BMT, 34 had a major ABO-incompatible donor. The median number of exchanges was 2 (range 1-4). There were no acute haemolytic transfusion reactions. Engraftment times, transfusion requirements and acute and chronic GVHD were no different from those of patients with an ABO-identical donor. Treatment-related mortality at 100 days was 21% in the group with a major ABO-incompatible donor and 17% in the group with an identical donor (P=0.8). Plasma exchange of the recipient is a safe method of managing donor-recipient major ABO incompatibility before BMT without the risk of haematopoietic progenitor cell loss associated with red cell depletion of the graft.