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

BACKGROUND: In the absence of bleeding, plasma is commonly transfused to people prophylactically to prevent bleeding. In this context, it is transfused before operative or invasive procedures (such as liver biopsy or chest drainage tube insertion) in those considered at increased risk of bleeding, typically defined by abnormalities of laboratory tests of coagulation. As plasma contains procoagulant factors, plasma transfusion may reduce perioperative bleeding risk. This outcome has clinical importance given that perioperative bleeding and blood transfusion have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Plasma is expensive, and some countries have experienced issues with blood product shortages, donor pool reliability, and incomplete screening for transmissible infections. Thus, although the benefit of prophylactic plasma transfusion has not been well established, plasma transfusion does carry potentially life-threatening risks. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of prophylactic plasma transfusion for people with coagulation test abnormalities (in the absence of inherited bleeding disorders or use of anticoagulant medication) requiring non-cardiac surgery or invasive procedures. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), without language or publication status restrictions in: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017 Issue 7); Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946); Ovid Embase (from 1974); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCOHost) (from 1937); PubMed (e-publications and in-process citations ahead of print only); Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950); Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (from 1982); Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) (Thomson Reuters, from 1990); ClinicalTrials.gov; and World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Search Platform (ICTRP) to 28 January 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs comparing: prophylactic plasma transfusion to placebo, intravenous fluid, or no intervention; prophylactic plasma transfusion to alternative pro-haemostatic agents; or different haemostatic thresholds for prophylactic plasma transfusion. We included participants of any age, and we excluded trials incorporating individuals with previous active bleeding, with inherited bleeding disorders, or taking anticoagulant medication before enrolment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials in this review, all were conducted in high-income countries. Three additional trials are ongoing. One trial compared fresh frozen plasma (FFP) transfusion with no transfusion given. One trial compared FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion given. One trial compared FFP transfusion with administration of alternative pro-haemostatic agents (factors II, IX, and X followed by VII). One trial compared the use of different transfusion triggers using the international normalised ratio measurement. One trial compared the use of a thromboelastographic-guided transfusion trigger using standard laboratory measurements of coagulation. Four trials enrolled only adults, whereas the fifth trial did not specify participant age. Four trials included only minor procedures that could be performed by the bedside. Only one trial included some participants undergoing major surgical operations. Two trials included only participants in intensive care. Two trials included only participants with liver disease. Three trials did not recruit sufficient participants to meet their pre-calculated sample size. Overall, the quality of evidence was low to very low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology, due to risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision. One trial was stopped after recruiting two participants, therefore this review's findings are based on the remaining four trials (234 participants). When plasma transfusion was compared with no transfusion given, we are very uncertain whether there was a difference in 30-day mortality (1 trial comparing FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion, 72 participants; risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 1.10; very low-quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether there was a difference in major bleeding within 24 hours (1 trial comparing FFP transfusion vs no transfusion, 76 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.93; very low-quality evidence; 1 trial comparing FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion, 72 participants; RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.28 to 8.93; very low-quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether there was a difference in the number of blood product transfusions per person (1 trial, 76 participants; study authors reported no difference; very low-quality evidence) or in the number of people requiring transfusion (1 trial comparing FFP or platelet transfusion or both with neither FFP nor platelet transfusion, 72 participants; study authors reported no blood transfusion given; very low-quality evidence) or in the risk of transfusion-related adverse events (acute lung injury) (1 trial, 76 participants; study authors reported no difference; very low-quality evidence). When plasma transfusion was compared with other pro-haemostatic agents, we are very uncertain whether there was a difference in major bleeding (1 trial; 21 participants; no events; very low-quality evidence) or in transfusion-related adverse events (febrile or allergic reactions) (1 trial, 21 participants; RR 9.82, 95% CI 0.59 to 162.24; very low-quality evidence). When different triggers for FFP transfusion were compared, the number of people requiring transfusion may have been reduced (for overall blood products) when a thromboelastographic-guided transfusion trigger was compared with standard laboratory tests (1 trial, 60 participants; RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.39; low-quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether there was a difference in major bleeding (1 trial, 60 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-quality evidence) or in transfusion-related adverse events (allergic reactions) (1 trial; 60 participants; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.87; very low-quality evidence). Only one trial reported 30-day mortality. No trials reported procedure-related harmful events (excluding bleeding) or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Review findings show uncertainty for the utility and safety of prophylactic FFP use. This is due to predominantly very low-quality evidence that is available for its use over a range of clinically important outcomes, together with lack of confidence in the wider applicability of study findings, given the paucity or absence of study data in settings such as major body cavity surgery, extensive soft tissue surgery, orthopaedic surgery, or neurosurgery. Therefore, from the limited RCT evidence, we can neither support nor oppose the use of prophylactic FFP in clinical practice.

Prophylactic plasma transfusion for patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To determine the clinical effectiveness and safety of prophylactic plasma transfusion for people with confirmed or presumed coagulopathy requiring non-cardiac surgery.

Transfusion of fresher versus older red blood cells for all conditions.

BACKGROUND: Red blood cell transfusion is a common treatment for anaemia in many clinical conditions. One current concern is uncertainty as to the clinical consequences (notably efficacy and safety) of transfusing red blood cell units that have been stored for different durations of time before a transfusion. If evidence from randomised controlled trials were to indicate that clinical outcomes are affected by storage age, the implications for inventory management and clinical practice would be significant. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of using fresher versus older red blood cells in people requiring a red blood cell transfusion. SEARCH METHODS: We ran the search on 29th September 2014. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCO), PubMed (for e-publications), three other databases and trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing fresher red blood cell transfusion versus active transfusion of older red blood cells, and comparing fresher red blood cell transfusion versus current standard practice. All definitions of 'fresher' and 'older'/'standard practice' red blood cells were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted from the trial report data on adverse red blood cell transfusion reactions, when reported. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 trials (1864 participants) in the review. Eight trials (279 participants) compared transfusion of fresher red blood cells versus transfusion of older stored red blood cells ('fresher' vs 'older'). Eight trials (1585 participants) compared the transfusion of fresher red blood cells versus current standard practice ('fresher' vs 'standard practice'). Five trials enrolled neonates, one trial enrolled children and 12 trials enrolled adults. Overall sample sizes were small: only two trials randomly assigned more than 100 participants.We performed no meta-analyses for a variety of reasons: no uniform definition of 'fresher' or 'older' red blood cell storage; overlap in the distribution of the age of red blood cells; and heterogeneity in measurements and reporting of outcomes of interest to this review. We tabulated and reported results by individual trial. Overall risk of bias was low or unclear, with four incidences of high risk of bias: in allocation concealment (three trials) and in incomplete outcome data (one trial).No trial measured all of the outcomes of interest in this review. Four trials comparing 'fresher' with 'older' red blood cells reported the primary outcome: mortality within seven days (one study; 74 participants) and at 30 days (three trials; 62 participants). Six trials comparing 'fresher' with 'standard practice' red blood cells reported the primary outcome: mortality within seven days (three studies; 159 participants) and at 30 days (three trials; 1018 participants). All 10 trials reported no clear differences in mortality at either time point between intervention arms.Three trials comparing 'fresher' with 'standard practice' red blood cells reported red blood cell transfusion-associated adverse events. No adverse reactions were reported in two trials, and one incidence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection was described in the 'standard practice' arm in one trial.Overall the trials reported no clear difference between either of the intervention comparisons in long-term mortality (three trials; 478 participants); clinically accepted measures of multiple organ dysfunction (two trials: 399 participants); incidence of in-hospital infection (two trials; 429 participants); duration of mechanical ventilation (three trials: 95 participants); and number of participants requiring respiratory organ support (five trials; 528 participants) or renal support (one trial; 57 participants). The outcome 'physiological markers of oxygen consumption or alterations in microcirculation' was reported by 11 studies, but the measures used were highly varied, and no formal statistical analysis was undertaken. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Several factors precluded firm conclusions about the clinical outcomes of transfusing red blood cell units that have been stored for different periods of time before transfusion, including differences in clinical population and setting, diversity in the interventions used, methodological limitations and differences in how outcomes were measured and reported.No clear differences in the primary outcome - death - were noted between 'fresher' and 'older' or 'standard practice' red blood cells in trials that reported this outcome. Findings of a large number of ongoing trials will be incorporated into this review when they are published.Updates of this review will explore the degree of overlap in trials between 'fresher', 'older' and 'standard practice' storage ages of red blood cells and will consider whether the size of any observed effects is dependent on recipient factors such as clinical background, patient age or clinical presentation.

Red cell transfusion management for patients undergoing cardiac surgery for congenital heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Congenital heart disease is the most commonly diagnosed neonatal congenital condition. Without surgery, only 30% to 40% of patients affected will survive to 10 years old. Mortality has fallen since the 1990s with 2006 to 2007 figures showing surgical survival at one year of 95%. Patients with congenital heart disease are potentially exposed to red cell transfusion at many points in the surgical pathway. There are a number of risks associated with red cell transfusion that may be translated into increased patient morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of red cell transfusion on mortality and morbidity on patients with congenital heart disease at the time of cardiac surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched 11 bibliographic databases and three ongoing trials databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 5, 2013), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1950 to 11 June 2013), EMBASE (Ovid, 1980 to 11 June 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) ICTRP and the ISRCTN Register (to June 2013). We also searched references of all identified trials, relevant review articles and abstracts from between 2006 and 2010 of the most relevant conferences. We did not limit the searches by language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing red cell transfusion interventions in patients undergoing cardiac surgery for congenital heart disease. We included participants of any age (neonates, paediatrics and adults) and with any type of congenital heart disease (cyanotic or acyanotic). We excluded patients with congenital heart disease undergoing non-cardiac surgery. No co-morbidities were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 trials (862 participants). All trials were in neonatal or paediatric populations. The trials covered only three areas of interest: restrictive versus liberal transfusion triggers (two trials), leukoreduction versus non-leukoreduction (two trials) and standard versus non-standard cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) prime (seven trials). Owing to the clinical diversity in the participant groups (cyanotic (three trials), acyanotic (four trials) or mixed (four trials)) and the intervention groups, it was not appropriate to pool data in a meta-analysis. No study reported data for all the outcomes of interest to this review. Risk of bias was mixed across the included trials, with only attrition bias being low across all trials. Blinding of study personnel and participants was not always possible, depending on the intervention being used.Five trials (628 participants) reported the primary outcome: 30-day mortality. In three trials (a trial evaluating restrictive and liberal transfusion (125 participants), a trial of cell salvage during CPB (309 participants) and a trial of washed red blood cells during CPB (128 participants)), there was no clear difference in mortality at 30 days between the intervention arms. In two trials comparing standard and non-standard CPB prime, there were no deaths in either randomised group. Long-term mortality was similar between randomised groups in one trial each comparing restrictive and liberal transfusion or standard and non-standard CPB prime.Four trials explored a range of adverse effects following red cell transfusion. Kidney failure was the only adverse event that was significantly different: patients receiving cell salvaged red blood cells during CPB were less likely to have renal failure than patients not exposed to cell salvage (risk ratio (RR) 0.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.79, 1 study, 309 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between transfusion strategies for any other severe adverse events.The duration of mechanical ventilation was measured in seven trials (768 participants). Overall, there was no consistent difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation between the intervention and control arms.The duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay was measured in six trials (459 participants). There was no clear difference in the duration of ICU stay between the intervention arms in the transfusion trigger and leukoreduction trials. In the standard versus non-standard CPB prime trials, one trial examining the impact of washing transfused bypass prime red blood cells showed no clear difference in duration of ICU stay between the intervention arms, while the trial assessing ultrafiltration of the priming blood showed a shorter duration of ICU stay in the ultrafiltration group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are only a small number of small and heterogeneous trials so there is insufficient evidence to assess the impact of red cell transfusion on patients with congenital heart disease undergoing cardiac surgery accurately. It is possible that the presence or absence of cyanosis impacts on trial outcomes, which would necessitate different clinical management of two groups. Further adequately powered, specific, high-quality trials are warranted to assess this fully.

The clinical effects of red blood cell transfusions: an overview of the randomized controlled trials evidence base.

No up-to-date overview of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in red blood cell (RBC) transfusion exists. This systematic review examines the quantity and quality of the evidence for the clinical effects of RBC transfusion. One hundred forty-two eligible RCTs were identified through searches of The Cochrane Library (issue 4, 2009), MEDLINE (1950 to November 2009), EMBASE (1974 to November 2009), and other relevant sources. After data extraction and methodological quality assessment, trials were grouped by clinical specialty and type of RBC transfusion. Data analysis was predominantly descriptive. The 142 RCTs covered 11 specialties and 10 types of RBC transfusion. The number of included patients varied widely across the RCTs (median, 57; IQ range, 27-167). Most trials were single center comparing 2 parallel study arms. Overall, the reporting of methodological assessment was poor, although it improved markedly from 2001. Clinical areas with few trials are highlighted. Comparison with a study of RBC use in clinical practice highlighted a lack of correlation between the size of the evidence base for a given clinical specialty and the proportion of total RBC use by that clinical specialty. The gaps in the evidence base and the poor methodology of trials particularly in the past do not provide a strong evidence base for the use of RBC transfusions, but they indicate important targets for future research.