TY - JOUR
T1 - Transfusion outcomes between regular and low yield pathogen reduced platelets across different patient populations in a single institution
AU - Tang, Mei San
AU - Shu, Elaine
AU - Sussman, Harry
AU - Virk, Mrigender
AU - Pandey, Suchitra
AU - Shan, Hua
AU - Pham, Tho
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was made possible by a large group of people, and the authors would like to thank the entire Quantinuum team for their many contributions. The experiments reported in this manuscript were performed on Quantinuum’s H1-1 and H1-2 system models, which are powered by Honeywell ion traps. We thank C. Baldwin for helpful discussions regarding the performance benchmarks on H1-1 and H1-2. We used the ITensor library, written in Julia, to perform the tensor-network contractions to generate the theory curves. Quantum circuits were prepared and simulated using the Qiskit library created by IBM. A.C.P. was supported by NSF Convergence Accelerator Track C award 2040549.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 AABB.
PY - 2022/10
Y1 - 2022/10
N2 - Background: Pathogen reduction technology (PRT) effectively mitigates bacterial contamination in platelets but is more likely to produce low yield units. Although low dose transfusion using conventional platelets has not been associated with increased bleeding, these findings have not been reproduced with PRT-treated platelets. Study Design and Methods: Platelet transfusions in a tertiary adult hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Comparisons were made between PRT-treated regular (PRT-PR) and low (PRT-PL) yield platelets. Outcomes examined included the number of platelets and RBCs transfused, transfusion-free interval, and corrected count increment (CCI). Subgroup analyses were also performed on hematology–oncology inpatients and outpatients, as well as non-hematology–oncology patients. Results: Platelet utilization per patient remained mostly unchanged (mean 2.9–4.3 units per patient per month) even when the frequency of PRT-PL transfusion increased. Among 1402 patients examined, the number of platelets and RBCs transfused was not significantly different between patients first transfused with PRT-PR versus PRT-PL (mean number of platelet units = 2.8 vs. 3.1, p = 0.38; mean number of RBC units = 4.8 vs. 4.3, p = 0.93). Among 10,257 platelet transfusions examined, the transfusion-free interval (hazard ratio = 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.00–1.10) and CCI (10.2 vs. 11.0, p = 0.70) were comparable between PRT-PR and PRT-PL units. Similar findings were observed in all subgroups, except for shortened transfusion-free intervals among hematology–oncology inpatients. Conclusion: PRT-PR and PRT-PL units may be used in an equivalent manner to maintain an adequate platelet inventory, since there was only a minor difference in time between transfusions.
AB - Background: Pathogen reduction technology (PRT) effectively mitigates bacterial contamination in platelets but is more likely to produce low yield units. Although low dose transfusion using conventional platelets has not been associated with increased bleeding, these findings have not been reproduced with PRT-treated platelets. Study Design and Methods: Platelet transfusions in a tertiary adult hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Comparisons were made between PRT-treated regular (PRT-PR) and low (PRT-PL) yield platelets. Outcomes examined included the number of platelets and RBCs transfused, transfusion-free interval, and corrected count increment (CCI). Subgroup analyses were also performed on hematology–oncology inpatients and outpatients, as well as non-hematology–oncology patients. Results: Platelet utilization per patient remained mostly unchanged (mean 2.9–4.3 units per patient per month) even when the frequency of PRT-PL transfusion increased. Among 1402 patients examined, the number of platelets and RBCs transfused was not significantly different between patients first transfused with PRT-PR versus PRT-PL (mean number of platelet units = 2.8 vs. 3.1, p = 0.38; mean number of RBC units = 4.8 vs. 4.3, p = 0.93). Among 10,257 platelet transfusions examined, the transfusion-free interval (hazard ratio = 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.00–1.10) and CCI (10.2 vs. 11.0, p = 0.70) were comparable between PRT-PR and PRT-PL units. Similar findings were observed in all subgroups, except for shortened transfusion-free intervals among hematology–oncology inpatients. Conclusion: PRT-PR and PRT-PL units may be used in an equivalent manner to maintain an adequate platelet inventory, since there was only a minor difference in time between transfusions.
KW - pathogen reduction technology
KW - platelets
KW - transfusion practices (adult)
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85135513630&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/trf.17043
DO - 10.1111/trf.17043
M3 - Article
C2 - 35924914
AN - SCOPUS:85135513630
SN - 0041-1132
VL - 62
SP - 2012
EP - 2019
JO - Transfusion
JF - Transfusion
IS - 10
ER -