2014
DOI: 10.1111/bjh.13165
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Is the continued use of UK plasma sourced cryoprecipitate justified? Response to Makris

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 4 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The cost advantage, however, is lost in patients born after January 1, 1996, as the national recommendation is to use methylene blue-treated non-UK-plasma products. 36 Particularly, before these patients constitute the majority of blood recipients, it is a major challenge to keep sufficient stock of MB-treated cryoprecipitate of the optimal blood group without causing wastage due to expiry, and there is a stringent requirement to infuse this within 4 hours of thawing. MF plasma products are approximately 5× as expensive as UK-based plasma products.…”
Section: Treatmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The cost advantage, however, is lost in patients born after January 1, 1996, as the national recommendation is to use methylene blue-treated non-UK-plasma products. 36 Particularly, before these patients constitute the majority of blood recipients, it is a major challenge to keep sufficient stock of MB-treated cryoprecipitate of the optimal blood group without causing wastage due to expiry, and there is a stringent requirement to infuse this within 4 hours of thawing. MF plasma products are approximately 5× as expensive as UK-based plasma products.…”
Section: Treatmentmentioning
confidence: 99%