Evaluation Of The Appropriateness Of Frozen Plasma Usage In The Era Of Prothrombin Complex Concentrates: A Retrospective Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Although frozen plasma (FP) transfusion is ubiquitous in clinical practice there is growing evidence that calls into question its administration outside a few selected clinical disorders. Indications for FP have been further reduced by the introduction of prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs), which are now recommended for reversal of coagulopathies due to vitamin K antagonists (VKA). Audits consistently demonstrate that FP is administered to patients who do not have a specific indication for its use; in some cases “inappropriate” FP use exceeds “appropriate” FP use. This audit sought to determine if the introduction of PCCs has changed patterns of practice and the appropriateness of FP use. Methods After ethics review we performed a quality assurance retrospective chart audit at a single tertiary care hospital of consecutive patients receiving FP over a 3 month period. Baseline characteristics were obtained for each of these patients via chart review. Each episode of FP use over a 24 hour period was adjudicated independently by two Hematology fellows and determined to be appropriate, inconsistent (with guidelines) yet appropriate, or inappropriate in accordance to Canadian and AABB guidelines. Episodes where a consensus could not be reached were adjudicated independently by a consultant hematologist. Specific criteria for “appropriateness” were developed based on the chart review; for example, transfusion of more than 5 units of packed red blood cells in a 2:1 ratio or greater with FP was considered inconsistent yet appropriate. Bleeding was defined as a decrease in hemoglobin of 2 g/dL over 24 hours, a transfusion of 2 units of red blood cells without a rise in hemoglobin, or bleeding in an enclosed space. Reversal of oral VKAs with FP was always deemed inappropriate. FP usage during the study period was also compared to 3-month periods from previous years. Results Over the study period, 111 episodes and 466 units of frozen plasma use were recorded. Comparisons to the three month period between January to March of previous years are shown in Figure 1. Interobserver agreement was good between the two Hematology fellows (weighted kappa=0.736) and very good with the fellows to the consensus adjudication (weighted kappa=0.824 and 0.810). After exclusion of FP use for plasmapheresis (always considered appropriate), 33/89 (37.1%), 16/89 (18.0%), and 40/89 (44.9%) episodes were deemed to be appropriate, inconsistent yet appropriate, or inappropriate, respectively. The most common reasons for inappropriate use were the absence of bleeding with an increased INR or VKA reversal. Results are presented in further detail in Table 1. FP transfusion occurred in the ICU 74.8% of the time. Conclusion Our study is the first to audit FP transfusions in the post-PCC era. FP usage remains inappropriately high. FP transfusion to patients who are not bleeding or having procedures despite INR prolongation and the use of FP to reverse VKA are the main reasons for inappropriate FP usage. The majority of FP usage occurred in the ICU. Targeted interventions to reduce FP usage in the future should include both educational and administrative programs, with a focus on the ICU. Clearer evidence on the role of FP in massive transfusions may also reduce FP usage. Disclosures: Crowther: Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Octapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy; Leo Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL Behring: Speakers Bureau; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Baxter: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Asahi Kasai: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Viropharma: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».