Watson D M, Stanworth S J, Wyncoll D, McAuley D F, Perkins G D, Young D, Biggin K J, Walsh T S
Better Blood Transfusion, Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service, Glasgow, UK.
Transfus Med. 2011 Apr;21(2):124-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3148.2010.01049.x. Epub 2010 Nov 10.
It is known that 20-30% of fresh frozen plasma (FFP) is used in intensive care units (ICUs), but little is known about variations in decision making between clinicians in relation to coagulopathy management. Our aim was to describe ICU clinicians' beliefs and practice in relation to FFP treatment of non-bleeding coagulopathic critically ill patients.
Two patient-based scenarios were developed and sent to 2700 members of two UK intensive care professional societies. Scenario 1 was a non-bleeding septic patient with coagulopathy; scenario 2 was a non-bleeding critically ill patient with hepatic cirrhosis and coagulopathy. Responses were sought in relation to FFP prophylaxis, and prior to central venous cannulation. A supplementary question asked clinicians' view of prophylaxis in relation to other ICU procedures.
Two-thousand-and-seven-hundred clinicians were surveyed from whom 601 responses were received (22·3% response rate). For scenario 1 52% of respondents stated that they would never routinely administer prophylactic FFP, but this decreased to 9% when central venous cannulation was planned (P < 0·01). There was wide variation in the 'trigger' INR (international normalised ratio) value used prior to central vein cannulation, the most common range being 2·0-2·4. For scenario 2, responses were very similar. More than 80% of clinicians stated that they would routinely treat coagulopathy prior to lumbar puncture, epidural catheterisation, intracranial pressure monitoring and tracheostomy; and 54% prior to chest drain insertion.
Our survey demonstrated a wide range of responses consistent with important variations in clinical practice and substantial clinical uncertainty in relation to FFP treatment for non-bleeding ICU patients.
已知20% - 30%的新鲜冰冻血浆(FFP)用于重症监护病房(ICU),但关于临床医生在凝血功能障碍管理决策方面的差异知之甚少。我们的目的是描述ICU临床医生对于非出血性凝血功能障碍重症患者FFP治疗的看法和实践。
设计了两个基于患者的情景,并发送给英国两个重症监护专业协会的2700名成员。情景1是一名患有凝血功能障碍的非出血性脓毒症患者;情景2是一名患有肝硬化和凝血功能障碍的非出血性重症患者。在进行中心静脉置管之前,针对FFP预防性使用进行了调查。一个补充问题询问了临床医生对于其他ICU操作预防性使用FFP的看法。
共调查了2700名临床医生,收到601份回复(回复率为22.3%)。对于情景1,52%的受访者表示他们永远不会常规给予预防性FFP,但当计划进行中心静脉置管时,这一比例降至9%(P < 0.01)。在进行中心静脉置管之前使用的“触发”国际标准化比值(INR)值存在很大差异,最常见的范围是2.0 - 2.4。对于情景2,回复非常相似。超过80%的临床医生表示他们会在腰椎穿刺、硬膜外导管置入、颅内压监测和气管切开术前常规治疗凝血功能障碍;在胸腔引流管置入术前这一比例为54%。
我们的调查表明,对于非出血性ICU患者FFP治疗,临床实践存在重要差异且临床存在很大不确定性,回复范围广泛。