MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Evaluation Of The Appropriateness Of Frozen Plasma Usage In The Era Of Prothrombin Complex Concentrates: A Retrospective Study

2013· article· en· W2342300318 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrew W. Shih, Mark Crowther, Neal Manning, Shuoyan Ning, Emma Kolesar

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonSt. Joseph's HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProthrombin complex concentrateAuditFresh frozen plasmaRetrospective cohort studyPediatricsEmergency medicineInternal medicineWarfarinPlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicTrauma, Hemostasis, Coagulopathy, Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→