Skip to main content
Download PDF
- Main
Comparative risk of pulmonary adverse events with transfusion of pathogen reduced and conventional platelet components
- Snyder, Edward L;
- Wheeler, Allison P;
- Refaai, Majed;
- Cohn, Claudia S;
- Poisson, Jessica;
- Fontaine, Magali;
- Sehl, Mary;
- Nooka, Ajay K;
- Uhl, Lynne;
- Spinella, Philip;
- Fenelus, Maly;
- Liles, Darla;
- Coyle, Thomas;
- Becker, Joanne;
- Jeng, Michael;
- Gehrie, Eric A;
- Spencer, Bryan R;
- Young, Pampee;
- Johnson, Andrew;
- O'Brien, Jennifer J;
- Schiller, Gary J;
- Roback, John D;
- Malynn, Elizabeth;
- Jackups, Ronald;
- Avecilla, Scott T;
- Lin, Jin‐Sying;
- Liu, Kathy;
- Bentow, Stanley;
- Peng, Ho‐Lan;
- Varrone, Jeanne;
- Benjamin, Richard J;
- Corash, Laurence M
- et al.
Abstract
Background
Platelet 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 design
An 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.Results
By 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.Discussion
PRPC demonstrated reduced TEAMV with no excess treatment-related pulmonary morbidity.Many UC-authored scholarly publications are freely available on this site because of the UC's open access policies. Let us know how this access is important for you.