Noland, Daniel K.

Importance Patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass often require platelet transfusions for bleeding. Platelets are routinely stored at room temperature (20-24 °C) for up to 5 to 7 days; however, cold storage (1-6 °C) may allow for increased storage duration without loss of hemostatic function. Objective To determine the maximum cold-storage duration, up to 21 days, for which cold-stored platelets (CSPs) are noninferior or superior in hemostatic efficacy to room-temperature platelets (RTPs) when transfused in actively bleeding patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Design, Setting, and Participants A phase 3, multicenter, randomized, partially blinded, adaptive, noninferiority, storage duration–ranging trial conducted in pediatric and adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery with planned cardiopulmonary bypass at 27 sites in the US and Australia from December 2021 to March 2025. Statistical analysis was conducted from September 9 to October 3, 2025. Intervention Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive CSPs with a maximum of 21 days of storage vs RTPs with a maximum of 7 days of storage. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was a hemostatic efficacy score with values ranging from 1 to 5 and higher values indicating greater bleeding. The noninferiority margin was 1 point. The success criterion was met if at least 1 cold-storage duration of 7 days or more had a posterior probability of noninferiority of at least 97.5%. The secondary outcome was 24-hour chest tube output. Results Of the 1000 patients who underwent platelet transfusion, 989 were included in the primary analysis (650 CSPs and 339 RTPs). The cohort had a mean (SD) age of 42.1 (30.1) years and 67.8% were male. CSPs were noninferior to RTPs for the primary outcome, with a probability of greater than 99.9% for all cold-storage durations. Pooled across storage durations, CSPs had a mean difference from RTPs of 0.09 (95% credible interval, −0.06 to 0.23). Median (IQR) chest tube output at 24 hours (8.9 mL/kg [5.2-15.4] for CSPs vs 8.4 mL/kg [5.5-15.9] for RTPs; difference in medians, 0.4 [95% CI, −1.0 to 1.5]) was not statistically different between study groups. In a post hoc analysis, as all storage durations were noninferior, considering the CSPs as a single group, the hemostatic efficacy score was similar between both groups: mean (SD) of 3.08 (1.15) CSPs vs 2.99 (1.10) RTPs. There were no differences in venous or arterial thrombotic events, transfusion-associated adverse events, acute respiratory distress syndrome, kidney failure, septic shock, and mortality between the study groups, except for increased reexploration rates in the CSP group. Conclusions and Relevance For patients undergoing cardiac surgery, CSPs stored up to 21 days are noninferior to RTPs for the control of active surgical bleeding. Use of CSPs may allow for increased availability of platelets by reducing wastage and shortages and may allow for incorporation of platelets into inventory at locations where platelets cannot be maintained due to the 5- to 7-day shelf life of RTPs. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04834414

ABSTRACT Apheresis medicine is a continually evolving field with numerous studies published each year. To help apheresis practitioners stay up to date with the current literature, members of the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Attending Physician Subcommittee identified and summarized 10 seminal articles published in 2025, from the field of apheresis medicine. PubMed was used to identify articles published in four topics including donor apheresis, therapeutic apheresis, apheresis education, and apheresis collection for cellular therapy. These articles met at least one of the following criteria: novel findings, practice‐altering outcomes, international in scope, randomized‐controlled trial, relevant to current clinical practice, and/or provide evidence for category III or IV indications based on the ASFA 9th Special Issue of the Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice‐Evidence‐Based Approach. Full length, peer‐reviewed manuscripts in English with data from human subjects were included while case reports, review articles, and meta‐analyses were excluded.

ABSTRACT The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Attending Physician Subcommittee of the Physicians' Committee performed an annual review of articles published in 2024 related to apheresis medicine. The 10 seminal apheresis articles selected by the subcommittee members are summarized in this review. PubMed was used to identify manuscripts published in 2024 in four areas of interest: donor apheresis, therapeutic apheresis, apheresis education, and apheresis for cellular therapy. Only full length, peer‐reviewed manuscripts in English with data from human subjects were included. Case reports, review articles, and meta‐analyses were excluded. Articles were considered seminal if they met at least one of the following previously established criteria: novel finding(s), practice‐altering outcomes, international in scope, randomized‐controlled trial, relevant to current clinical practice, and/or provide evidence for category III or IV indications based on the ASFA 9th special issue of the Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice‐Evidence‐Based Approach.

Context.— Complexity of ordering and transfusing blood is particularly evident in the pediatric population. Simplification, clarification, and standardization of blood orders can decrease complexity and improve patient safety. Objective.— To improve patient safety by optimizing electronic ordering of blood components in pediatrics through a collaborative process improvement initiative. Design.— A multidisciplinary working group, formed as part of a value stream analysis to improve transfusion safety at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta (Atlanta, Georgia), focused on decreasing variability and providing clarity when ordering, preparing, and transfusing blood using the electronic health record. Through benchmarking with other pediatric institutions and a collaborative design process with multiple local stakeholders, an extensive redesign in the existing orders and order sets occurred. Metrics were collected to determine if a change was an improvement. Results.— Nurse and laboratory informaticists, a pathology informaticist, and a transfusion medicine specialist built the new orders based on the design. The new orders focused on the following changes: standardization, introduction of logic, naming conventions, clarifying definitions, adding calculations, improving transparency of history and laboratory data, removing aliquots, clarifying communication, and implementing additional modules to inform the provider of necessary information about the patient. Metrics included a decrease in the number of orders changed within an hour, decreased calls from the blood bank to the provider to clarify the order, and an absence of overtransfusions and transfusion-related serious safety events for a year following implementation. Conclusions.— This collaborative initiative, using standard process improvement tools, resulted in standardized blood orders improving transfusion safety.

ABSTRACTIn this first annual review article, the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Attending Physician Subcommittee (APSc) of the Physicians' Committee (PC) curated key apheresis literature in 2023 and presented their choices for the 10 most seminal apheresis articles. PubMed and OVID search engines were used to identify manuscripts from four topic areas: donor apheresis, therapeutic apheresis, education, and cellular therapy. To further identify seminal criteria, they had to present at least one of the following: novel findings, practice‐altering outcomes, international scope, randomized controlled trial, relevant to current clinical practice, and/or provide evidence for category III or IV indications based on the ASFA ninth special issue of the Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice‐Evidence‐Based Approach. Inclusion criteria included: full‐length, peer‐reviewed, English language, and human subjects. Case reports, review articles, and meta‐analyses were excluded.

AbstractBackgroundTrauma remains the leading cause of pediatric mortality in the United States. Although use of massive transfusion protocols (MTPs) in this population is widespread, optimal pediatric resuscitation is not well established. We sought to assess contemporary pediatric MTP practice in the United States.Study Design and MethodsA web‐based survey was designed by the Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB) Pediatric Transfusion Medicine Subsection and distributed to select American College of Surgeons (ACS) Level I Verified pediatric trauma centers. The survey assessed current MTP policy, implementation, and recent changes in practice.ResultsResponse rate was 55% (22/40). Almost half of the respondents were from the South. The median RBC:plasma ratio was 1 (interquartile range 1–1.5). Protocolized fibrinogen supplementation was common while integration of antifibrinolytic therapy into MTPs was infrequent. Viscoelastic testing (VET) was available at most sites, 71% (15/21, one site did not respond), and was generally utilized on an ad‐hoc basis. Roughly, a third of sites had changed their MTP in the past 3 years due to blood supply issues, and about a third reported having group O Whole Blood on‐site.ConclusionMTP practice is similar throughout the United States. Though fibrinogen supplementation is common—other emerging interventions such as antifibrinolytic therapy or utilization of routine viscoelastic testing—are not widespread. Pediatric transfusion medicine experts must continue to follow practice change, as contemporary large trials begin to characterize new supportive modalities to optimize resuscitation in pediatric trauma patients.

AbstractBackgroundThe COVID‐19 pandemic affected healthcare delivery across all specialties including apheresis. To describe the changes in apheresis service practices that occurred during the pandemic, the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Apheresis Medicine Attending Physician Subcommittee conducted a survey study.Study Design and MethodsA 32‐question survey was designed and distributed to 400 ASFA physician members on September 7, 2022. Attending physicians responded to questions about whether and how apheresis service practices changed during the COVID‐19 pandemic compared with the time period prior to the pandemic in terms of: (1) procedure types and volumes, (2) patient consultation workflow, and (3) the use of telemedicine. Descriptive analyses were reported as number and frequency of responses.ResultsThe survey response rate was 13.8% (55/400). Of these respondents, 96.4% (53/55) were attending physicians. The majority of respondents (42/53, 79.2%) indicated that the types of procedures performed during COVID‐19 compared to pre‐pandemic did not change. Most frequently for apheresis procedure volume, respondents reported: no change in their monthly inpatient volume (21/47, 44.7%) and a decrease in their monthly outpatient volume (28/46, 60.9%). Prior to COVID‐19, 75.0% (30/40) of respondents performed consultations at bedside for inpatients and 67.4% (29/43) performed consultations at bedside for outpatients. Bedside consultations decreased in both settings during the pandemic but were still most frequently performed by attending physicians. At the same time, the use of telemedicine increased for 15.4% of survey respondents during COVID‐19.ConclusionSome, but not all, respondents observed or made changes to their apheresis service during the COVID‐19 pandemic. A subset of changes, such as increased utilization of telemedicine, may persist.

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesConvalescent COVID‐19 plasma (CCP) was developed and used worldwide as a treatment option by supplying passive immunity. Adult studies suggest administering high‐titer CCP early in the disease course of patients who are expected to be antibody‐negative; however, pediatric experience is limited. We created a multi‐institutional registry to characterize pediatric patients (<18 years) who received CCP and to assess the safety of this intervention.MethodsA REDCap survey was distributed. The registry collected de‐identified data including demographic information (age, gender, and underlying conditions), COVID‐19 disease features and concurrent treatments, CCP transfusion and safety events, and therapy response.ResultsNinety‐five children received CCP: 90 inpatients and 5 outpatients, with a median age of 10.2 years (range 0–17.9). They were predominantly Latino/Hispanic and White. The most frequent underlying medical conditions were chronic respiratory disease, immunosuppression, obesity, and genetic syndromes. CCP was primarily given as a treatment (95%) rather than prophylaxis (5%). Median total plasma dose administered and transfusion rates were 5.0 ml/kg and 2.6 ml/kg/h, respectively. The transfusions were well‐tolerated, with 3 in 115 transfusions reporting mild reactions. No serious adverse events were reported. Severity scores decreased significantly 7 days after CCP transfusion or at discharge. Eighty‐five patients (94.4%) survived to hospital discharge. All five outpatients survived to 60 days.ConclusionsCCP was found to be safe and well‐tolerated in children. CCP was frequently given concurrently with other COVID‐19‐directed treatments with improvement in clinical severity scores ≥7 days after CCP, but efficacy could not be evaluated in this study.