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.

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.