Back to Authors

Triulzi, Darrell J.

Mayo Clinic

University of Pittsburgh

Citations 12

2015 proceedings of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's State of the Science in Transfusion Medicine symposium
Spitalnik, Steven L. , Triulzi, Darrell J., Devine, Dana V. , Dzik, Sunny , Eder, Anne F. , Gernsheimer, Terry , Kor, Daryl J. , Luban, Naomi L.C., Mondoro, Traci Heath, Welniak, Lisbeth A., Zou, Shimian , Glynn, Simone A. , Groups, for the State of the Science in Transfusion Medicine Working, Shaz, Beth H. , Spinella, Philip C. , Rogers, Mary A.M. , Vlaar, Alexander P. J. , Migliaccio, Anna Ritá , Callum, Jeannie , Karam, Oliver , Josephson, Cassandra D. , Roubinian, Nareg H. , Welniak, Lisbeth A., Groups, for the State of the Science in Transfusion Medicine Working, Devine, Dana V , Shaz, Beth H , Spinella, Philip C , Karam, Oliver

Transfusion | August 11, 2015 | Volume: 55 | Issue: 9 | Pages: 2282-2290

10.1111/trf.13250 Get It

On March 25 and 26, 2015, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute sponsored a meeting on the State of the Science in Transfusion Medicine on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) campus in Bethesda, Maryland, which was attended by a diverse group of 330 registrants. The meeting's goal was to identify important research questions that could be answered in the next 5 to 10 years and which would have the potential to transform the clinical practice of transfusion medicine. These questions could be addressed by basic, translational, and/or clinical research studies and were focused on four areas: the three “classical” transfusion products (i.e., red blood cells, platelets, and plasma) and blood donor issues. Before the meeting, four working groups, one for each area, prepared five major questions for discussion along with a list of five to 10 additional questions for consideration. At the meeting itself, all of these questions, and others, were discussed in keynote lectures, small‐group breakout sessions, and large‐group sessions with open discourse involving all meeting attendees. In addition to the final lists of questions, provided herein, the meeting attendees identified multiple overarching, cross‐cutting themes that addressed issues common to all four areas; the latter are also provided. It is anticipated that addressing these scientific priorities, with careful attention to the overarching themes, will inform funding priorities developed by the NIH and provide a solid research platform for transforming the future practice of transfusion medicine.
A multicenter study of plasma use in the United States
Triulzi, Darrell J., Gottschall, Jerome L. , Murphy, Edward L. , Wu, Yanyun , Ness, Paul M., Kor, Daryl J. , Fleischmann, Debra, Chowdhury, Dhuly , Brambilla, Donald , (REDS‐III), NHLBI Recipient Epidemiology and Donor Evaluation Study‐III, Kor, Daryl, Roubinian, Nareg H. , (REDS‐III), NHLBI Recipient Epidemiology and Donor Evaluation Study‐III

Transfusion | December 19, 2014 | Volume: 55 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 1313-1319

10.1111/trf.12970 Get It

BackgroundDetailed information regarding plasma use in the United States is needed to identify opportunities for practice improvement and design of clinical trials of plasma therapy.Study Design and MethodsTen US hospitals collected detailed medical information from the electronic health records for 1 year (2010‐2011) for all adult patients transfused with plasma.ResultsA total of 72,167 units of plasma were transfused in 19,596 doses to 9269 patients. The median dose of plasma was 2 units (interquartile range, 2‐4; range 1‐72); 15% of doses were 1 unit, and 45% were 2 units. When adjusted by patient body weight (kg), the median dose was 7.3 mL/kg (interquartile range, 5.5‐12.0). The median pretransfusion international normalized ratio (INR) was 1.9 (25%‐75% interquartile range, 1.6‐2.6). A total of 22.5% of plasma transfusions were given to patients with an INR of less than 1.6 and 48.5% for an INR of 2.0 or more. The median posttransfusion INR was 1.6 (interquartile range, 1.4‐2.0). Only 42% of plasma transfusions resulted in a posttransfusion INR of less than 1.6. Correction of INR increased as the plasma dose increased from 1 to 4 units (p < 0.001). There was no difference in the INR response to different types of plasma. The most common issue locations were general ward (38%) and intensive care unit (ICU; 42%).ConclusionThis large database describing plasma utilization in the United States provides evidence for both inadequate dosing and unnecessary transfusion. Measures to improve plasma transfusion practice and clinical trials should be directed at patients on medical and surgical wards and in the ICU where plasma is most commonly used.