Heckman K D, Weiner G J, Davis C S, Strauss R G, Jones M P, Burns C P
Department of Medicine, The University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City 52242, USA.
J Clin Oncol. 1997 Mar;15(3):1143-9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.1997.15.3.1143.
We designed and conducted a randomized single-institution trial comparing two common prophylactic platelet transfusion thresholds in patients undergoing induction therapy for acute leukemia.
Seventy-eight patients undergoing induction therapy for acute leukemia were randomized to receive prophylactic apheresis platelet concentrates when the platelet count was either < or = 10,000/microL or < or = 20,000/microL.
There was no significant difference in the total number of bleeding episodes per patient with a median of four in the < or = 10,000/microL arm and two in the < or = 20,000/microL arm (25th to 75th percentiles of 2, 7 and 1, 5, respectively; P = .12). Patients randomized to the < or = 10,000/microL arm received more platelet transfusions for bleeding [one (0, 2) v zero (0, 0); P = .0003]. In contrast, patients on the < or = 20,000/microL arm received more platelet transfusions for prophylactic indications [10 (5, 14) v six (3, 8); P = 0.001], as would be expected, but less for bleeding. Nevertheless, the total number of platelet transfusions given to patients on the < or = 20,000/microL arm was higher and nearly significant [11 (6, 15) v seven (5, 11); P = .07]. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regard to RBC transfusion requirements, febrile days, days hospitalized, days thrombocytopenic, need for HLA-matched platelets, remission rate, or death during induction chemotherapy. No patient in either group died from hemorrhage or underwent major surgery for bleeding complications.
Giving prophylactic platelets at a threshold of < or = 10,000/microL compared with < or = 20,000/microL can decrease the total utilization of platelets with only a small adverse effect on bleeding, and no statistically significant effect on morbidity.
我们设计并开展了一项单机构随机试验,比较急性白血病诱导治疗患者中两种常见的预防性血小板输注阈值。
78例接受急性白血病诱导治疗的患者被随机分组,当血小板计数≤10,000/μL或≤20,000/μL时接受预防性单采血小板浓缩物。
每位患者的出血发作总数无显著差异,血小板计数≤10,000/μL组中位数为4次,血小板计数≤20,000/μL组中位数为2次(第25至75百分位数分别为2、7和1、5;P = 0.12)。随机分组至血小板计数≤10,000/μL组的患者因出血接受的血小板输注更多[1次(0,2)对0次(0,0);P = 0.0003]。相比之下,血小板计数≤20,000/μL组的患者因预防性指征接受的血小板输注更多[10次(5,14)对6次(3,8);P = 0.001],正如预期,但因出血接受的输注较少。然而,血小板计数≤20,000/μL组患者接受的血小板输注总数更高且接近显著差异[11次(6,15)对7次(5,11);P = 0.07]。两组在红细胞输注需求、发热天数、住院天数、血小板减少天数、是否需要人类白细胞抗原匹配的血小板、缓解率或诱导化疗期间的死亡率方面无统计学显著差异。两组均无患者死于出血或因出血并发症接受大手术。
与血小板计数≤20,000/μL相比,以≤10,000/μL为阈值给予预防性血小板可降低血小板的总使用量,对出血仅有微小不良影响,对发病率无统计学显著影响。