Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Department of Haematology, NHS Blood and Transplant/Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK; Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Transfus Med Rev. 2017 Oct;31(4):223-229. doi: 10.1016/j.tmrv.2017.05.008. Epub 2017 Jun 15.
Abnormal laboratory coagulation test results are frequently documented in critically ill patients, and these patients often also need to undergo invasive procedures. Clinicians have an understandable desire to minimize any perceived heightened risk of bleeding complications in those patients who require invasive procedures. In this setting, prophylactic administration of platelets or plasma is commonplace. This review explores the nature of these sequential statements and the degree to which these statements are supported by evidence. We discuss the complexity of managing the low risk of procedure-related bleeding in a setting where coagulation tests fail to reliably predict this risk. The role of prophylactic transfusion of platelets and plasma and correction of medication-induced coagulopathy is also reviewed. New strategies are required to improve the evidence base, including novel methodological approaches or the use of a clinical scoring system.
危重症患者常出现异常的实验室凝血检测结果,且这些患者常需进行有创操作。临床医生希望尽量降低有创操作患者的出血并发症风险,这是可以理解的。在此情况下,预防性输注血小板或血浆较为常见。本综述探讨了这些连续陈述的性质,以及这些陈述在多大程度上得到了证据的支持。我们讨论了在凝血检测无法可靠预测这种风险的情况下,管理与操作相关的低出血风险的复杂性。预防性输注血小板和血浆以及纠正药物诱导的凝血障碍的作用也进行了讨论。需要新的策略来提高证据基础,包括新的方法学方法或使用临床评分系统。