Cargando…

Thromboelastometry versus standard coagulation tests versus restrictive protocol to guide blood transfusion prior to central venous catheterization in cirrhosis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Liver failure patients have traditionally been empirically transfused prior to invasive procedures. Blood transfusion is associated with immunologic and nonimmunologic reactions, increased risk of adverse outcomes and high costs. Scientific evidence supporting empirical transfusion is la...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rocha, Leonardo Lima, Pessoa, Camila Menezes Souza, Neto, Ary Serpa, do Prado, Rogerio Ruscitto, Silva, Eliezer, de Almeida, Marcio Dias, Correa, Thiago Domingos
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5327508/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28241780
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1835-5
_version_ 1782510745952452608
author Rocha, Leonardo Lima
Pessoa, Camila Menezes Souza
Neto, Ary Serpa
do Prado, Rogerio Ruscitto
Silva, Eliezer
de Almeida, Marcio Dias
Correa, Thiago Domingos
author_facet Rocha, Leonardo Lima
Pessoa, Camila Menezes Souza
Neto, Ary Serpa
do Prado, Rogerio Ruscitto
Silva, Eliezer
de Almeida, Marcio Dias
Correa, Thiago Domingos
author_sort Rocha, Leonardo Lima
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Liver failure patients have traditionally been empirically transfused prior to invasive procedures. Blood transfusion is associated with immunologic and nonimmunologic reactions, increased risk of adverse outcomes and high costs. Scientific evidence supporting empirical transfusion is lacking, and the best approach for blood transfusion prior to invasive procedures in cirrhotic patients has not been established so far. The aim of this study is to compare three transfusion strategies (routine coagulation test-guided – ordinary or restrictive, or thromboelastometry-guided) prior to central venous catheterization in critically ill patients with cirrhosis. METHODS/DESIGN: Design and setting: a double-blinded, parallel-group, single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial in a tertiary private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Inclusion criteria: adults (aged 18 years or older) admitted to the intensive care unit with cirrhosis and an indication for central venous line insertion. Patients will be randomly assigned to three groups for blood transfusion strategy prior to central venous catheterization: standard coagulation tests-based, thromboelastometry-based, or restrictive. The primary efficacy endpoint will be the proportion of patients transfused with any blood product prior to central venous catheterization. The primary safety endpoint will be the incidence of major bleeding. Secondary endpoints will be the proportion of transfusion of fresh frozen plasma, platelets and cryoprecipitate; infused volume of blood products; hemoglobin and hematocrit before and after the procedure; intensive care unit and hospital length of stay; 28-day and hospital mortality; incidence of minor bleeding; transfusion-related adverse reactions; and cost analysis. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate three strategies to guide blood transfusion prior to central venous line placement in severely ill patients with cirrhosis. We hypothesized that thromboelastometry-based and/or restrictive protocols are safe and would significantly reduce transfusion of blood products in this population, leading to a reduction in costs and transfusion-related adverse reactions. In this manner, this trial will add evidence in favor of reducing empirical transfusion in severely ill patients with coagulopathy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02311985. Retrospectively registered on 3 December 2014. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1835-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5327508
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53275082017-03-03 Thromboelastometry versus standard coagulation tests versus restrictive protocol to guide blood transfusion prior to central venous catheterization in cirrhosis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial Rocha, Leonardo Lima Pessoa, Camila Menezes Souza Neto, Ary Serpa do Prado, Rogerio Ruscitto Silva, Eliezer de Almeida, Marcio Dias Correa, Thiago Domingos Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Liver failure patients have traditionally been empirically transfused prior to invasive procedures. Blood transfusion is associated with immunologic and nonimmunologic reactions, increased risk of adverse outcomes and high costs. Scientific evidence supporting empirical transfusion is lacking, and the best approach for blood transfusion prior to invasive procedures in cirrhotic patients has not been established so far. The aim of this study is to compare three transfusion strategies (routine coagulation test-guided – ordinary or restrictive, or thromboelastometry-guided) prior to central venous catheterization in critically ill patients with cirrhosis. METHODS/DESIGN: Design and setting: a double-blinded, parallel-group, single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial in a tertiary private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Inclusion criteria: adults (aged 18 years or older) admitted to the intensive care unit with cirrhosis and an indication for central venous line insertion. Patients will be randomly assigned to three groups for blood transfusion strategy prior to central venous catheterization: standard coagulation tests-based, thromboelastometry-based, or restrictive. The primary efficacy endpoint will be the proportion of patients transfused with any blood product prior to central venous catheterization. The primary safety endpoint will be the incidence of major bleeding. Secondary endpoints will be the proportion of transfusion of fresh frozen plasma, platelets and cryoprecipitate; infused volume of blood products; hemoglobin and hematocrit before and after the procedure; intensive care unit and hospital length of stay; 28-day and hospital mortality; incidence of minor bleeding; transfusion-related adverse reactions; and cost analysis. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate three strategies to guide blood transfusion prior to central venous line placement in severely ill patients with cirrhosis. We hypothesized that thromboelastometry-based and/or restrictive protocols are safe and would significantly reduce transfusion of blood products in this population, leading to a reduction in costs and transfusion-related adverse reactions. In this manner, this trial will add evidence in favor of reducing empirical transfusion in severely ill patients with coagulopathy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02311985. Retrospectively registered on 3 December 2014. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1835-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-02-27 /pmc/articles/PMC5327508/ /pubmed/28241780 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1835-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Rocha, Leonardo Lima
Pessoa, Camila Menezes Souza
Neto, Ary Serpa
do Prado, Rogerio Ruscitto
Silva, Eliezer
de Almeida, Marcio Dias
Correa, Thiago Domingos
Thromboelastometry versus standard coagulation tests versus restrictive protocol to guide blood transfusion prior to central venous catheterization in cirrhosis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title Thromboelastometry versus standard coagulation tests versus restrictive protocol to guide blood transfusion prior to central venous catheterization in cirrhosis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_full Thromboelastometry versus standard coagulation tests versus restrictive protocol to guide blood transfusion prior to central venous catheterization in cirrhosis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Thromboelastometry versus standard coagulation tests versus restrictive protocol to guide blood transfusion prior to central venous catheterization in cirrhosis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Thromboelastometry versus standard coagulation tests versus restrictive protocol to guide blood transfusion prior to central venous catheterization in cirrhosis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_short Thromboelastometry versus standard coagulation tests versus restrictive protocol to guide blood transfusion prior to central venous catheterization in cirrhosis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_sort thromboelastometry versus standard coagulation tests versus restrictive protocol to guide blood transfusion prior to central venous catheterization in cirrhosis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5327508/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28241780
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-1835-5
work_keys_str_mv AT rochaleonardolima thromboelastometryversusstandardcoagulationtestsversusrestrictiveprotocoltoguidebloodtransfusionpriortocentralvenouscatheterizationincirrhosisstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT pessoacamilamenezessouza thromboelastometryversusstandardcoagulationtestsversusrestrictiveprotocoltoguidebloodtransfusionpriortocentralvenouscatheterizationincirrhosisstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT netoaryserpa thromboelastometryversusstandardcoagulationtestsversusrestrictiveprotocoltoguidebloodtransfusionpriortocentralvenouscatheterizationincirrhosisstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT dopradorogerioruscitto thromboelastometryversusstandardcoagulationtestsversusrestrictiveprotocoltoguidebloodtransfusionpriortocentralvenouscatheterizationincirrhosisstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT silvaeliezer thromboelastometryversusstandardcoagulationtestsversusrestrictiveprotocoltoguidebloodtransfusionpriortocentralvenouscatheterizationincirrhosisstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT dealmeidamarciodias thromboelastometryversusstandardcoagulationtestsversusrestrictiveprotocoltoguidebloodtransfusionpriortocentralvenouscatheterizationincirrhosisstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT correathiagodomingos thromboelastometryversusstandardcoagulationtestsversusrestrictiveprotocoltoguidebloodtransfusionpriortocentralvenouscatheterizationincirrhosisstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT thromboelastometryversusstandardcoagulationtestsversusrestrictiveprotocoltoguidebloodtransfusionpriortocentralvenouscatheterizationincirrhosisstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial