澳大利亚新鲜冷冻血浆审计:国家输血委员会与血液事务合作。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY Transfusion Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-05 DOI:10.1111/trf.17978
Lisa Clarke, Ellen Maxwell, Trish Roberts, Linley Bielby
{"title":"澳大利亚新鲜冷冻血浆审计:国家输血委员会与血液事务合作。","authors":"Lisa Clarke, Ellen Maxwell, Trish Roberts, Linley Bielby","doi":"10.1111/trf.17978","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a paucity of high-quality data to guide appropriate fresh frozen plasma transfusion with current recommendations based on consensus opinion. The limitations of the product and testing modalities are poorly understood with the rare but potentially serious side effects underappreciated. Combined this has resulted in the widespread misuse of FFP.</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>Retrospective data capturing FFP transfusion within the 12-month period of April 1, 2022 and March 31, 2023 was entered by Australian health care providers. Appropriate transfusion was assessed by the adjudicators and defined as one in keeping with current recommendations. Descriptive and comparative analyses were performed using SAS Studio version 9.4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period, 935 FFP transfusion episodes were captured. The most frequent indications for FFP were massive hemorrhage 344 (37%), bleeding 141 (15%), and preoperative use 90 (10%). Males received 534 (60%) transfusions. Critical care specialists were the largest users of FFP, prescribing 568 (63%) of transfusions. FFP was used appropriately in 546 (61%) transfusions. However, when massive hemorrhage was excluded only 202 (37%) transfusions were appropriate. Patients with an INR <1.5 received 37% of transfusions. Transfusion associated adverse events were reported in 2% (15) of transfusions including two non-fatal anaphylactic reactions.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This audit assesses the appropriate use of FFP across all major clinical indications and provides the largest body of evidence of Australian plasma transfusion practices. It highlights the widespread misuse of FFP, which is predominantly guided by consensus recommendations due to a lack of high-quality data.</p>","PeriodicalId":23266,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Australian fresh frozen plasma audit: A National Blood Transfusion Committee and Blood Matters collaboration.\",\"authors\":\"Lisa Clarke, Ellen Maxwell, Trish Roberts, Linley Bielby\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/trf.17978\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a paucity of high-quality data to guide appropriate fresh frozen plasma transfusion with current recommendations based on consensus opinion. The limitations of the product and testing modalities are poorly understood with the rare but potentially serious side effects underappreciated. Combined this has resulted in the widespread misuse of FFP.</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>Retrospective data capturing FFP transfusion within the 12-month period of April 1, 2022 and March 31, 2023 was entered by Australian health care providers. Appropriate transfusion was assessed by the adjudicators and defined as one in keeping with current recommendations. Descriptive and comparative analyses were performed using SAS Studio version 9.4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study period, 935 FFP transfusion episodes were captured. The most frequent indications for FFP were massive hemorrhage 344 (37%), bleeding 141 (15%), and preoperative use 90 (10%). Males received 534 (60%) transfusions. Critical care specialists were the largest users of FFP, prescribing 568 (63%) of transfusions. FFP was used appropriately in 546 (61%) transfusions. However, when massive hemorrhage was excluded only 202 (37%) transfusions were appropriate. Patients with an INR <1.5 received 37% of transfusions. Transfusion associated adverse events were reported in 2% (15) of transfusions including two non-fatal anaphylactic reactions.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This audit assesses the appropriate use of FFP across all major clinical indications and provides the largest body of evidence of Australian plasma transfusion practices. It highlights the widespread misuse of FFP, which is predominantly guided by consensus recommendations due to a lack of high-quality data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transfusion\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transfusion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.17978\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfusion","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.17978","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:缺乏高质量的数据来指导适当的新鲜冰冻血浆输注,目前的建议都是基于共识意见。人们对该产品的局限性和检测方法知之甚少,对其罕见但潜在的严重副作用认识不足。研究设计和方法:研究设计:澳大利亚医疗服务提供者输入了 2022 年 4 月 1 日至 2023 年 3 月 31 日 12 个月内的 FFP 输血回顾性数据。适当输血由评审员进行评估,并定义为符合当前建议的输血。使用 SAS Studio 9.4 版进行描述性分析和比较分析:在研究期间,共记录了 935 次 FFP 输血。最常见的 FFP 适应症是大出血 344 例(37%)、出血 141 例(15%)和术前使用 90 例(10%)。男性接受了 534 次(60%)输血。重症监护专家是 FFP 的最大使用者,他们开出了 568 份(63%)输血处方。546例(61%)输血中,FFP得到了合理使用。然而,在排除大出血的情况下,只有 202 例(37%)输血是适当的。有 INR 的患者 讨论:此次审计评估了 FFP 在所有主要临床适应症中的合理使用情况,为澳大利亚的血浆输注实践提供了大量证据。它强调了 FFP 的广泛滥用,由于缺乏高质量的数据,FFP 的使用主要以共识建议为指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Australian fresh frozen plasma audit: A National Blood Transfusion Committee and Blood Matters collaboration.

Background: There is a paucity of high-quality data to guide appropriate fresh frozen plasma transfusion with current recommendations based on consensus opinion. The limitations of the product and testing modalities are poorly understood with the rare but potentially serious side effects underappreciated. Combined this has resulted in the widespread misuse of FFP.

Study design and methods: Retrospective data capturing FFP transfusion within the 12-month period of April 1, 2022 and March 31, 2023 was entered by Australian health care providers. Appropriate transfusion was assessed by the adjudicators and defined as one in keeping with current recommendations. Descriptive and comparative analyses were performed using SAS Studio version 9.4.

Results: During the study period, 935 FFP transfusion episodes were captured. The most frequent indications for FFP were massive hemorrhage 344 (37%), bleeding 141 (15%), and preoperative use 90 (10%). Males received 534 (60%) transfusions. Critical care specialists were the largest users of FFP, prescribing 568 (63%) of transfusions. FFP was used appropriately in 546 (61%) transfusions. However, when massive hemorrhage was excluded only 202 (37%) transfusions were appropriate. Patients with an INR <1.5 received 37% of transfusions. Transfusion associated adverse events were reported in 2% (15) of transfusions including two non-fatal anaphylactic reactions.

Discussion: This audit assesses the appropriate use of FFP across all major clinical indications and provides the largest body of evidence of Australian plasma transfusion practices. It highlights the widespread misuse of FFP, which is predominantly guided by consensus recommendations due to a lack of high-quality data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Transfusion
Transfusion 医学-血液学
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
20.70%
发文量
426
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: TRANSFUSION is the foremost publication in the world for new information regarding transfusion medicine. Written by and for members of AABB and other health-care workers, TRANSFUSION reports on the latest technical advances, discusses opposing viewpoints regarding controversial issues, and presents key conference proceedings. In addition to blood banking and transfusion medicine topics, TRANSFUSION presents submissions concerning patient blood management, tissue transplantation and hematopoietic, cellular, and gene therapies.
期刊最新文献
Laboratory detection of donors implicated in transfusion-transmitted malaria. Splitting apheresis platelets as a contingency measure for inventory shortages. Longitudinal outcomes of chronically transfused adults with sickle cell disease and a history of childhood stroke. High-frequency whole blood donation and its impact on mortality: Evidence from a data linkage study in Australia. Risk of introducing Zika virus in the Canadian cord blood supply: A risk analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1