Suppr超能文献

一种仅用于治疗与预防性血小板输注策略,用于预防血液系统疾病患者在骨髓抑制性化疗或干细胞移植后出血。

A therapeutic-only versus prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy for preventing bleeding in patients with haematological disorders after myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation.

作者信息

Crighton Gemma L, Estcourt Lise J, Wood Erica M, Trivella Marialena, Doree Carolyn, Stanworth Simon

机构信息

Transfusion Outcome Research Collaborative, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University and Australian Red Cross Blood Service, The Alfred Centre, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, VICTORIA, Australia, 3004.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 30;2015(9):CD010981. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010981.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusions are used in modern clinical practice to prevent and treat bleeding in thrombocytopenic patients with bone marrow failure. Although considerable advances have been made in platelet transfusion therapy in the last 40 years, some areas continue to provoke debate, especially concerning the use of prophylactic platelet transfusions for the prevention of thrombocytopenic bleeding.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2004 and updated in 2012 that addressed four separate questions: therapeutic-only versus prophylactic platelet transfusion policy; prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold; prophylactic platelet transfusion dose; and platelet transfusions compared to alternative treatments. We have now split this review into four smaller reviews looking at these questions individually; this review is the first part of the original review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy (platelet transfusions given when patient bleeds) is as effective and safe as a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (platelet transfusions given to prevent bleeding, usually when the platelet count falls below a given trigger level) in patients with haematological disorders undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950) and ongoing trial databases to 23 July 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs involving transfusions of platelet concentrates prepared either from individual units of whole blood or by apheresis, and given to prevent or treat bleeding in patients with malignant haematological disorders receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy or undergoing HSCT.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified seven RCTs that compared therapeutic platelet transfusions to prophylactic platelet transfusions in haematology patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT. One trial is still ongoing, leaving six trials eligible with a total of 1195 participants. These trials were conducted between 1978 and 2013 and enrolled participants from fairly comparable patient populations. We were able to critically appraise five of these studies, which contained separate data for each arm, and were unable to perform quantitative analysis on one study that did not report the numbers of participants in each treatment arm.Overall the quality of evidence per outcome was low to moderate according to the GRADE approach. None of the included studies were at low risk of bias in every domain, and all the studies identified had some threats to validity. We deemed only one study to be at low risk of bias in all domains other than blinding.Two RCTs (801 participants) reported at least one bleeding episode within 30 days of the start of the study. We were unable to perform a meta-analysis due to considerable statistical heterogeneity between studies. The statistical heterogeneity seen may relate to the different methods used in studies for the assessment and grading of bleeding. The underlying patient diagnostic and treatment categories also appeared to have some effect on bleeding risk. Individually these studies showed a similar effect, that a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion strategy was associated with an increased risk of clinically significant bleeding compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy. Number of days with a clinically significant bleeding event per participant was higher in the therapeutic-only group than in the prophylactic group (one RCT; 600 participants; mean difference 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.90; moderate-quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was any difference in the number of participants with severe or life-threatening bleeding between a therapeutic-only transfusion policy and a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (two RCTs; 801 participants; risk ratio (RR) 4.91, 95% CI 0.86 to 28.12; low-quality evidence). Two RCTs (801 participants) reported time to first bleeding episode. As there was considerable heterogeneity between the studies, we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Both studies individually found that time to first bleeding episode was shorter in the therapeutic-only group compared with the prophylactic platelet transfusion group.There was insufficient evidence to determine any difference in all-cause mortality within 30 days of the start of the study using a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (two RCTs; 629 participants). Mortality was a rare event, and therefore larger studies would be needed to establish the effect of these alternative strategies. There was a clear reduction in the number of platelet transfusions per participant in the therapeutic-only arm (two RCTs, 991 participants; standardised mean reduction of 0.50 platelet transfusions per participant, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.37; moderate-quality evidence). None of the studies reported quality of life. There was no evidence of any difference in the frequency of adverse events, such as transfusion reactions, between a therapeutic-only and prophylactic platelet transfusion policy (two RCTs; 991 participants; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.68), although the confidence intervals were wide.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to moderate-grade evidence that a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy is associated with increased risk of bleeding when compared with a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy in haematology patients who are thrombocytopenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or HSCT. There is insufficient evidence to determine any difference in mortality rates and no evidence of any difference in adverse events between a therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy and a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy. A therapeutic-only platelet transfusion policy is associated with a clear reduction in the number of platelet components administered.

摘要

背景

在现代临床实践中,血小板输注用于预防和治疗骨髓衰竭的血小板减少患者的出血。尽管在过去40年血小板输注治疗方面取得了显著进展,但一些领域仍存在争议,尤其是关于预防性血小板输注用于预防血小板减少性出血的问题。这是Cochrane系统评价的更新版,该评价首次发表于2004年,2012年进行了更新,涉及四个独立问题:仅治疗性与预防性血小板输注策略;预防性血小板输注阈值;预防性血小板输注剂量;以及血小板输注与替代治疗的比较。我们现在已将该评价拆分为四个较小的评价,分别探讨这些问题;本评价是原评价的第一部分。

目的

确定在接受骨髓抑制化疗或干细胞移植的血液系统疾病患者中,仅治疗性血小板输注策略(患者出血时给予血小板输注)是否与预防性血小板输注策略(通常在血小板计数降至给定触发水平以下时给予血小板输注以预防出血)同样有效和安全。

检索方法

我们在Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(Cochrane Library 2015年第6期)、MEDLINE(1946年起)、Embase(1974年起)、CINAHL(1937年起)、输血证据库(1950年起)以及截至2015年7月23日的正在进行的试验数据库中检索随机对照试验(RCT)。

入选标准

涉及输注由单个全血单位制备或通过单采法制备的血小板浓缩物,用于预防或治疗接受骨髓抑制化疗或造血干细胞移植(HSCT)的恶性血液系统疾病患者出血的RCT。

数据收集与分析

我们采用了Cochrane协作网期望的标准方法程序。

主要结果

我们识别出7项RCT,这些研究比较了接受骨髓抑制化疗或HSCT的血液学患者中治疗性血小板输注与预防性血小板输注。1项试验仍在进行中,其余6项试验符合纳入标准,共1195名参与者。这些试验在1978年至2013年期间进行,纳入的参与者来自相当可比的患者群体。我们能够对其中5项研究进行严格评价,这些研究每个组均包含单独的数据,对于1项未报告每个治疗组参与者数量的研究,我们无法进行定量分析。根据GRADE方法,总体而言每个结局的证据质量为低到中等。纳入的研究在每个领域均未处于低偏倚风险,所有识别出的研究在有效性方面均存在一些威胁。我们仅认为1项研究在除盲法外的所有领域均处于低偏倚风险。2项RCT(801名参与者)报告了在研究开始后30天内至少发生1次出血事件。由于研究间存在相当大的统计学异质性,我们无法进行Meta分析。观察到的统计学异质性可能与研究中用于评估和分级出血的不同方法有关。潜在的患者诊断和治疗类别似乎也对出血风险有一定影响。这些研究单独来看显示出相似结果,即与预防性血小板输注策略相比,仅治疗性血小板输注策略与临床上显著出血风险增加相关。仅治疗性组中每位参与者发生临床上显著出血事件的天数高于预防性组(1项RCT;600名参与者;平均差值0.50,95%置信区间(CI)0.10至0.90;中等质量证据)。没有足够证据确定仅治疗性输血策略与预防性血小板输注策略之间在发生严重或危及生命出血的参与者数量上是否存在差异(2项RCT;801名参与者;风险比(RR)4.91,95%CI 0.86至28.12;低质量证据)。2项RCT(801名参与者)报告了首次出血事件的时间。由于研究间存在相当大的异质性,我们无法进行Meta分析。两项研究单独来看均发现仅治疗性组首次出血事件的时间短于预防性血小板输注组。没有足够证据确定在研究开始后30天内,与预防性血小板输注策略相比,仅治疗性血小板输注策略在全因死亡率方面是否存在差异(2项RCT;629名参与者)。死亡率是一个罕见事件,因此需要更大规模的研究来确定这些替代策略的效果。仅治疗性组每位参与者的血小板输注次数明显减少(2项RCT,991名参与者;每位参与者血小板输注标准化平均减少0.50次,95%CI -0.63至-0.37;中等质量证据)。没有研究报告生活质量。没有证据表明仅治疗性与预防性血小板输注策略在输血反应等不良事件发生频率上存在任何差异(2项RCT;991名参与者;RR 1.02,95%CI 0.62至1.68),尽管置信区间较宽。

作者结论

我们发现低到中等质量的证据表明,在因骨髓抑制化疗或HSCT导致血小板减少的血液学患者中,与预防性血小板输注策略相比,仅治疗性血小板输注策略与出血风险增加相关。没有足够证据确定死亡率是否存在差异,也没有证据表明仅治疗性血小板输注策略与预防性血小板输注策略在不良事件方面存在任何差异。仅治疗性血小板输注策略与所输注血小板成分数量的明显减少相关。

相似文献

5
Pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding.用于预防出血的去病原体血小板。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 30;7(7):CD009072. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009072.pub3.
10
Pathogen-reduced platelets for the prevention of bleeding.用于预防出血的去病原体血小板。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Mar 28(3):CD009072. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009072.pub2.

引用本文的文献

9
Neonatal platelet physiology and implications for transfusion.新生儿血小板生理学及其对输血的影响。
Platelets. 2022 Jan 2;33(1):14-22. doi: 10.1080/09537104.2021.1962837. Epub 2021 Aug 16.
10
A nationwide survey of clinical use of blood in Italy.一项意大利全国范围的血液临床使用调查。
Blood Transfus. 2021 Sep;19(5):384-395. doi: 10.2450/2021.0083-21. Epub 2021 Aug 5.

本文引用的文献

6
Platelet transfusion: a systematic review of the clinical evidence.血小板输注:临床证据的系统评价
Transfusion. 2015 May;55(5):1116-27; quiz 1115. doi: 10.1111/trf.12943. Epub 2014 Nov 12.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验