Comparison of three transfusion protocols prior to central venous catheterization in patients with cirrhosis: A randomized controlled trial. (2nd December 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rocha, Leonardo L.; Neto, Ary S.; Pessoa, Camila M. S.; Almeida, Márcio D.; Juffermans, Nicole P.; Crochemore, Tomaz; Rodrigues, Roseny R.; Filho, Roberto R.; de Freitas Chaves, Renato Carneiro; Cavalheiro, Ana M.; Prado, Rogério R.; Assunção, Murillo S. C.; Guardia, Bianca D.; Silva, Eliézer; Corrêa, Thiago D.
• Is Part Of: Journal of thrombosis and haemostasis. Volume 18:Number 3(2020)
• Page Start: 560
• Page End: 570
• Publication Date: 2019-12-02
• Subjects: blood coagulation -- central venous catheters -- critical care -- liver cirrhosis -- thromboelastography; Thrombosis -- Periodicals; Hemostasis -- Periodicals; Blood coagulation disorders -- Periodicals; 616.1
• DOI: 10.1111/jth.14672
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1538-7933

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Transfusion of blood components prior to invasive procedures in cirrhosis patients is high and associated with adverse events. Objectives: We compared three transfusion strategies prior to central venous catheterization in cirrhosis patients. Patients/Methods: Single center randomized trial that included critically ill cirrhosis patients with indication for central venous line in a tertiary private hospital in Brazil. Interventions: Restrictive protocol, thromboelastometry‐guided protocol, or usual care (based on coagulogram). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients transfused with any blood component (ie, fresh frozen plasma, platelets, or cryoprecipitate). The secondary endpoints included incidence of bleeding and transfusion‐related adverse events. Results: A total of 57 patients (19 per group; 64.9% male; mean age, 53.4 ± 11.3 years) were enrolled. Prior to catheterization, 3/19 (15.8%) in the restrictive arm, 13/19 (68.4%) in the thromboelastometry‐guided arm, and 14/19 (73.7%) in the coagulogram‐guided arm received blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR], 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01‐0.45; P = .002 for restrictive versus coagulogram‐guided arm; OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01‐0.56; P = .006 for restrictive versus thromboelastometry‐guided arm; and OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.14‐4.15; P = .931 for thromboelastometry‐guided versus coagulogram‐guided arm). The restrictive protocol was cost saving. No difference in bleeding, length of stay, mortality, and transfusion‐related adverse events was found. Conclusions: The use of a restrictive strategy is associated with a reduction in transfusion prior to central venous catheterization and costs in critically ill cirrhosis patients. No effect on bleeding was found among the groups.