Young, Pampee

Abstract Background Cryoprecipitated antihemophiliac factor (cryo) is primarily used to replenish fibrinogen in acquired coagulopathy. Little has been reported about its usage patterns within hospitals with respect to patient population, frequency of use, and dosing. Study design and methods Cryo production and usage data were collected over 5 years from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2021, from nationally based blood collection centers in the United States (U.S. n = 2) and Canada ( n = 2) and from eight large academic hospitals, respectively. Usage data for a similar product, purified fibrinogen concentrate were also collected from four hospitals. Results Two U.S. blood collectors reported increases in cryo production normalized to total whole blood collections from 17.4% in 2016 to 22.3% in 2021 and from 16.4% in 2016 to 20.2% in 2021. In contrast, in Canada cryo manufacturing increased slightly in one region (11.3%–12.9%) and decreased (8.0%–2.0%) in the other. Cryo utilization, defined as numbers of patients treated normalized to the inpatient census, and dose administered per patient did not consistently increase and differed significantly between hospitals participating in the study ( p < .0001). Likewise, the departments that most frequently transfused cryo varied between hospitals. Similarly, variations in practice were observed for fibrinogen concentrate usage. Conclusion While much of Canada and Europe have moved towards using fibrinogen concentrate, two large U.S. collectors have increased cryo distribution. The lack of standardization and variability in the clinical practice regarding the use of cryo and fibrinogen concentrate reported by study sites may be attributable to practitioner preference, availability, and/or cost rather than adherence to published evidence or guidelines.

AbstractBackgroundPlatelet transfusion carries risk of transfusion‐transmitted infection (TTI). Pathogen reduction of platelet components (PRPC) is designed to reduce TTI. Pulmonary adverse events (AEs), including transfusion‐related acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) occur with platelet transfusion.Study designAn open label, sequential cohort study of transfusion‐dependent hematology‐oncology patients was conducted to compare pulmonary safety of PRPC with conventional PC (CPC). The primary outcome was the incidence of treatment‐emergent assisted mechanical ventilation (TEAMV) by non‐inferiority. Secondary outcomes included: time to TEAMV, ARDS, pulmonary AEs, peri‐transfusion AE, hemorrhagic AE, transfusion reactions (TRs), PC and red blood cell (RBC) use, and mortality.ResultsBy modified intent‐to‐treat (mITT), 1068 patients received 5277 PRPC and 1223 patients received 5487 CPC. The cohorts had similar demographics, primary disease, and primary therapy. PRPC were non‐inferior to CPC for TEAMV (treatment difference −1.7%, 95% CI: (−3.3% to −0.1%); odds ratio = 0.53, 95% CI: (0.30, 0.94). The cumulative incidence of TEAMV for PRPC (2.9%) was significantly less than CPC (4.6%, p = .039). The incidence of ARDS was less, but not significantly different, for PRPC (1.0% vs. 1.8%, p = .151; odds ratio = 0.57, 95% CI: (0.27, 1.18). AE, pulmonary AE, and mortality were not different between cohorts. TRs were similar for PRPC and CPC (8.3% vs. 9.7%, p = .256); and allergic TR were significantly less with PRPC (p = .006). PC and RBC use were not increased with PRPC.DiscussionPRPC demonstrated reduced TEAMV with no excess treatment‐related pulmonary morbidity.