NHS Blood and Transplant Research and Development.
BackgroundThere is increasing interest in the timely administration of concentrated sources of fibrinogen to patients with major traumatic bleeding. Following evaluation of early cryoprecipitate in the CRYOSTAT 1 trial, we explored the use of fibrinogen concentrate, which may have advantages of more rapid administration in acute haemorrhage. The aims of this pragmatic study were to assess the feasibility of fibrinogen concentrate administration within 45 minutes of hospital admission and to quantify efficacy in maintaining fibrinogen levels ≥ 2 g/L during active haemorrhage.MethodsWe conducted a blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial at five UK major trauma centres with adult trauma patients with active bleeding who required activation of the major haemorrhage protocol. Participants were randomised to standard major haemorrhage therapy plus 6 g of fibrinogen concentrate or placebo.ResultsTwenty-seven of 39 participants (69%; 95% CI, 52–83%) across both arms received the study intervention within 45 minutes of admission. There was some evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants with fibrinogen levels ≥ 2 g/L between arms (p = 0.10). Fibrinogen levels in the fibrinogen concentrate (FgC) arm rose by a mean of 0.9 g/L (SD, 0.5) compared with a reduction of 0.2 g/L (SD, 0.5) in the placebo arm and were significantly higher in the FgC arm (p < 0.0001) at 2 hours. Fibrinogen levels were not different at day 7. Transfusion use and thromboembolic events were similar between arms. All-cause mortality at 28 days was 35.5% (95% CI, 23.8–50.8%) overall, with no difference between arms.ConclusionsIn this trial, early delivery of fibrinogen concentrate within 45 minutes of admission was not feasible. Although evidence points to a key role for fibrinogen in the treatment of major bleeding, researchers need to recognise the challenges of timely delivery in the emergency setting. Future studies must explore barriers to rapid fibrinogen therapy, focusing on methods to reduce time to randomisation, using ‘off-the-shelf’ fibrinogen therapies (such as extended shelf-life cryoprecipitate held in the emergency department or fibrinogen concentrates with very rapid reconstitution times) and limiting the need for coagulation test-based transfusion triggers.Trial registrationISRCTN67540073. Registered on 5 August 2015.
ObjectivesData on costs associated with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) are scarce. We provide estimates of UK healthcare costs, indirect costs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for patients presenting to hospital with AUGIB.SettingSix UK university hospitals with >20 AUGIB admissions per month, >400 adult beds, 24 h endoscopy, and on-site access to intensive care and surgery.Participants936 patients aged ≥18 years, admitted with AUGIB, and enrolled between August 2012 and March 2013 in the TRIGGER trial of AUGIB comparing restrictive versus liberal red blood cell (RBC) transfusion thresholds.Primary and secondary outcome measuresHealthcare resource use during hospitalisation and postdischarge up to 28 days, unpaid informal care, time away from paid employment and HRQoL using the EuroQol EQ-5D at 28 days were measured prospectively. National unit costs were used to value resource use. Initial in-hospital treatment costs were upscaled to a UK level.ResultsMean initial in-hospital costs were £2458 (SE=£216) per patient. Inpatient bed days, endoscopy and RBC transfusions were key cost drivers. Postdischarge healthcare costs were £391 (£44) per patient. One-third of patients received unpaid informal care and the quarter in paid employment required time away from work. Mean HRQoL for survivors was 0.74. Annual initial inhospital treatment cost for all AUGIB cases in the UK was estimated to be £155.5 million, with exploratory analyses of the incremental costs of treating hospitalised patients developing AUGIB generating figures of between £143 million and £168 million.ConclusionsAUGIB is a large burden for UK hospitals with inpatient stay, endoscopy and RBC transfusions as the main cost drivers. It is anticipated that this work will enable quantification of the impact of cost reduction strategies in AUGIB and will inform economic analyses of novel or existing interventions for AUGIB.Trial registration numberISRCTN85757829 and NCT02105532.
Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is the commonest reason for hospitalization with hemorrhage in the UK and the leading indication for transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs). Observational studies suggest an association between more liberal RBC transfusion and adverse patient outcomes, and a recent randomised trial reported increased further bleeding and mortality with a liberal transfusion policy. TRIGGER (Transfusion in Gastrointestinal Bleeding) is a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial which aims to evaluate the feasibility and safety of implementing a restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion policy in adult patients admitted with AUGIB. The trial will take place in 6 UK hospitals, and each centre will be randomly allocated to a transfusion policy. Clinicians throughout each hospital will manage all eligible patients according to the transfusion policy for the 6-month trial recruitment period. In the restrictive centers, patients become eligible for RBC transfusion when their hemoglobin is < 8 g/dL. In the liberal centers patients become eligible for transfusion once their hemoglobin is < 10 g/dL. All clinicians will have the discretion to transfuse outside of the policy but will be asked to document the reasons for doing so. Feasibility outcome measures include protocol adherence, recruitment rate, and evidence of selection bias. Clinical outcome measures include further bleeding, mortality, thromboembolic events, and infections. Quality of life will be measured using the EuroQol EQ-5D at day 28, and the costs associated with hospitalization for AUGIB in the UK will be estimated. Consent will be sought from participants or their representatives according to patient capacity for use of routine hospital data and day 28 follow up. The study has ethical approval for conduct in England and Scotland. Results will be analysed according to a pre-defined statistical analysis plan and disseminated in peer reviewed publications to relevant stakeholders. The results of this study will inform the feasibility and design of a phase III randomized trial.
SummaryThis study, conducted for the UK Blood Transfusion Services (UKBTS), evaluated the clinical safety of red cells filtered through a CE-marked prion removal filter (P-Capt). Patients requiring blood transfusion for elective procedures in nine UK hospitals were entered into a non-randomized open trial to assess development of red cell antibodies to standard red cell (RCC) or prion-filtered red cell concentrates (PF-RCC) at eight weeks and six months post-transfusion. Patients who received at least 1 unit of PF-RCC were compared with a control cohort given RCC only. About 917 PF-RCC and 1336 RCC units were transfused into 299 and 291 patients respectively. Twenty-six new red cell antibodies were detected post-transfusion in 10 patients in each arm, an overall alloimmunization rate of 4Á4%. Neither the treatment arm [odds ratio (OR) 0Á93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0Á3, 2Á5] nor number of units transfused (OR 0Á95, 95% CI 0Á8, 1Á1) had a significant effect on the proportion of patients who developed new alloantibodies. No pan-reactive antibodies or antibodies specifically against PF-RCC were detected. There was no difference in transfusion reactions between arms, and no novel transfusion-related adverse events clearly attributable to PF-RCC were seen. These data suggest that prion filtration of red cells does not reduce overall transfusion safety. This finding requires confirmation in large populations of transfused patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.