Evaluating the appropriateness of platelet transfusions compared with evidence-based platelet guidelines: An audit of platelet transfusions at 57 hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Platelet transfusions are used to prevent or control bleeding in patients with thrombocytopenia or platelet dysfunction. The pretransfusion platelet count threshold has been studied extensively in multiple patient settings yielding high-quality evidence that has been summarized in several comprehensive evidence-based platelet guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective 12-week audit of consecutive platelet transfusions using validated and evidence-based adjudication criteria was conducted. Patient demographic, laboratory, and transfusion details were collected with an electronic audit tool. Each order was adjudicated either electronically or independently by two transfusion medicine physicians. The aim was to determine platelet transfusion appropriateness and common scenarios with deviations from guidelines. RESULTS: Fifty-seven (38%) of 150 hospitals provided data on 1903 platelet orders, representing 90% of platelet usage in the region during the time period. Overall, 702 of 1693 adult (41.5%) and 133 of 210 pediatric orders (63.3%) were deemed inappropriate. The most common inappropriate platelet order was for prophylaxis in the absence of bleeding or planned procedure in patients with hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia and a platelet count over 10 x 109 /L (53% of inappropriate orders in adults and 45% in pediatrics). Platelet transfusions ordered with either a preprinted transfusion order set (odds ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44-2.73) or technologist prospective screening (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.10-1.78) were more likely to be appropriate. CONCLUSION: There is a discrepancy between clinical practice and evidence-based platelet guidelines. Broad educational and system changes will be needed to align platelet transfusion practice with guideline recommendations.

Canadian surgeons and the introduction of blood transfusion in war surgery.

Canadian surgeons serving in the Canadian Army Medical Corps in the First World War were responsible for introducing transfusion in the management of war casualties to the British Army. They were uniquely placed to do so by a coincidence of circumstances. They were aware of developments occurring in the field of blood transfusion in the United States, which was at the time leading the research and development of transfusion as a therapeutic measure. The ties between Britain and Canada in 1914 were such that Canada entered the war immediately, and Canadians served closely with the British, volunteering promptly and in large numbers. Britain, by contrast with the United States, had little interest in or expertise with blood transfusion. Thus, Canadian surgeons went to war aware of the value of blood transfusion and with some who had actually learned how to use transfusion. They arrived to find no interest or expertise on the part of their British colleagues and had to work hard to convince them of the merits of blood transfusion in the management of hemorrhage. Their efforts were reinforced by the arrival in 1917 of American surgeons bringing their experience with transfusion. By war's end, blood transfusion was generally accepted as the treatment of choice for severe blood loss.

Norman Bethune, eccentric, man of principle, man of action, surgeon, and his contribution to blood transfusion in war.

Norman Bethune was a Canadian surgeon born of a family with wide interests and varied and influential careers. He himself had wide interests in medicine, politics, and the arts. One phase of his career, lasting about 6 months, involved the rapid development and exploitation of a (then) unique mobile blood transfusion service delivering citrated stored blood to hospitals and casualty clearing stations in support of the Republican ("anti-fascist") forces in the Spanish Civil War in 1936 to 1937. He was among the first to recognize the importance of prompt transfusion in the severely injured. His contributions to transfusion medicine were not immediately acknowledged by his contemporaries interested in transfusion, perhaps a consequence of his failure to publish his experience in the relevant medical literature, although other factors probably also played a part. In the past 30 years or so, as part of a wider appreciation of his career (particularly his work in China in 1938-1939), details of his endeavors in transfusion in Spain have come to light.