Lowering the prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold: a prospective analysis.

The 20 x 10(9) /L threshold for prophylactic platelet transfusion may be unnecessarily high. Few prospective studies, however, in which other trigger values were tested have been published. In this study all hospitalized, thrombocytopenic adult hematology-oncology patients in our institution were prospectively evaluated daily for hemorrhage and platelet transfusion during a one year period; no patients were excluded for bleeding or infectious problems. By design, during the initial six-months (baseline period), the prophylactic platelet transfusion trigger was 20 x 10(9) /L; for the second six-months (study period) this threshold was changed to 10 x 10(9) /L. Patients studied during the two periods did not differ significantly in age, gender, diagnosis, blood or marrow transplant status, and duration of neutropenia. Compliance with the thresholds was 95.6% (baseline period) and 93.5% (study period). For patients with platelet counts under 20 x 10(9) /L, the mean use of platelet transfusions per patient per day was significantly lower in the study period (4.47) than in the baseline period (6.48; p<0.001). Both mean prophylactic (1.54/patient-day) and therapeutic (2.93/patient-day) platelet transfusions were reduced in the study period compared with the baseline period (2.26 and 4.22/patient-day, respectively). Hemorrhage was slightly reduced in the study period compared with the baseline period: major hemorrhage, 15.2% vs. 18.4% (p=0.014); minor hemorrhage, 63.6% vs. 70.1% (p<0.001). Thus, hemorrhage was not increased with the lower trigger level. A 10 x 10(9) /L prophylactic platelet transfusion threshold value is safe and effective.

The American Medical Association and physician performance measurement: information for improving patient care.

The American Medical Association convenes clinical experts from national medical specialty societies and experts in methodology and data collection to develop physician clinical performance measures. These measures, derived from established clinical recommendations, are intended to facilitate continuous quality improvement by physicians. Through notification and education about their performance, physicians can determine if, and where, changes are needed to improve patient care. Other approaches to physician performance measurement that seek to externally compare physicians should be viewed with caution because of one or more methodological concerns. The medical profession is committed to engaging physicians in performance measurement for quality improvement.

Protocol therapy for acute asthma: therapeutic benefits and cost savings.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the therapeutic and financial benefits of protocol therapy for acute asthma using standard medications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study employed a sequential design in which the influence of an asthma care path on hospital admissions, length of stay (LOS) in the emergency department, and return visits were evaluated for 1 year. This information was contrasted with similar data obtained from the 8 months immediately before the protocol was implemented (preprotocol) and a 12-month period after strict adherence to it had declined (admixture). RESULTS: In all, 526 acute exacerbations of asthma were treated with the care path, and 429 and 558 episodes were evaluated during the preprotocol and admixture periods, respectively. There were no significant differences between the presenting clinical or physiologic features of any group. With the protocol, 77% of the patients resolved their symptoms within 1:47 +/- 0.02 hours:minutes of arrival in the emergency department with a 2% return rate within 24 hours. The algorithms used quickly identified those needing hospitalization. Patients not meeting the criteria for discharge after receiving the treatments employed typically did not resolve their symptoms for days (average hospital stay 4.1 +/- 0.2 days). Compared with the preprotocol period, the care path significantly reduced the LOS by 50 minutes, the number of urgent and intensive care unit admissions by 27% and 41%, respectively, and the frequency of return visits within 24 hours by 66%. Charges to patients and third-party payors decreased $395,000. When adherence to the protocol diminished, LOS, admissions, and returns rose significantly toward preprotocol values and the financial benefits were lost. CONCLUSIONS: Asthma protocol therapy, based primarily upon aggressive use of sympathomimetics in association with serial monitoring of key indices of improvement, provides prompt and efficient relief for acute exacerbations of asthma. Such an approach yields significant financial benefit while quickly identifying individuals who require hospitalization, and it also detects physician practice patterns that can have potentially detrimental impacts on patient care.

Reliability of automated platelet counts: comparison with manual method and utility for prediction of clinical bleeding.

The 20 x 10(9)/L (20,000/microliters) threshold for prophylactic platelet transfusion may be unnecessarily high. The widespread use of this threshold may reflect lack of confidence in the reliability of low platelet counts. We evaluated the performance of automated platelet counts and their relation to clinical bleeding. First, we prepared serial blood dilutions with "target" platelet counts from 2 to 40 x 10(9)/L. For the 48 measurements on 2 x 10(9)/L "target" dilutions, values of 1 or 2 x 10(9)/L were obtained with the Sysmex NE-8000 analyzer (mean 1.44 x 10(9)/L; SD 0.31 x 10(9)/L). Similarly, for 5 x 10(9)/L "target" counts, automated counts were 3-6 x 10(9)/L (mean 4.42 x 10(9)/L; SD 0.18 x 10(9)/L). Similar results were observed with all other "target" levels, with coefficients of variation (CV) from 6.39% to 7.71% with 10-40 x 10(9)/L "target" values. Secondly, we compared triplicate automated and manual platelet counts on thrombocytopenic patients with platelet counts from 4-30 x 10(9)/L. The triplicate automated platelet counts differed by no more than 5 x 10(9)/L among themselves, whereas the manual counts varied by as much as 30 x 10(9)/L. Mean platelet counts: automated, 14.40 x 10(9)/L (CV 10.12%); manual, 16.48 x 10(9)/L (CV 30.39%) (P = 0.038 for counts; P < 0.001 for CV). Finally, we prospectively evaluated bleeding in thrombocytopenic patients (1,809 patient-days of observation). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed highly significant correlations between the automated platelet count and major and minor bleeding manifestations. Thus, automated platelet counts are highly reliable and accurately predict clinical bleeding. The use of automated analyzers should facilitate improved prophylactic platelet transfusion protocols.