...
首页> 外文期刊>Transfusion: The Journal of the American Association of Blood Banks >Plasma transfusion in liver transplantation: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical comparison of three virally secured plasmas
【24h】

Plasma transfusion in liver transplantation: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter clinical comparison of three virally secured plasmas

机译:肝移植中的血浆输注:三种病毒固定血浆的随机,双盲,多中心临床比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: The clinical equivalence of plasma treated to reduce pathogen transmission and untreated plasma has not been extensively studied. A clinical trial was conducted in liver transplant recipients to compare the efficacy of three plasmas. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized, equivalence, blinded trial was performed in four French liver transplantation centers. The three studied (fresh-frozen) plasmas were quarantine (Q-FFP), methylene blue (MB-FFP), and solvent/detergent (S/D-FFP) plasmas. The primary outcome was the volume of plasma transfused during transplantation. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative blood loss, hemostasis variables corrections, and adverse events. RESULTS: One-hundred patients were randomly assigned in the MB-FFP, 96 in the S/D-FFP, and 97 in the Q-FFP groups, respectively. The median volumes of plasma transfused were 2254, 1905, and 1798 mL with MB-FFP, S/D-FFP, and Q-FFP, respectively. The three plasmas were not equivalent. MB-FFP was not equivalent to the two other plasmas, but S/D-FFP and Q-FFP were equivalent. The median numbers of transfused plasma units were 10, 10, and 8 units with MB-FFP, S/D-FFP, and Q-FFP, respectively. Adjustment on bleeding risk factors diminished the difference between groups: the excess plasma volume transfused with MB-FFP compared to Q-FFP was reduced from 24% to 14%. Blood loss and coagulation factors corrections were not significantly different between the three arms. CONCLUSION: Compared to both Q-FFP and S/D-FFP, use of MB-FFP was associated with a moderate increase in volume transfused, partly explained by a difference in unit volume and bleeding risk factors. Q-FFP was associated with fewer units transfused than either S/D-FFP or MB-FFP.
机译:背景:为减少病原体传播而治疗血浆和未治疗血浆的临床等效性尚未得到广泛研究。在肝移植受者中进行了一项临床试验,以比较三种血浆的疗效。研究设计和方法:在法国的四个肝移植中心进行了一项随机,等效,盲法试验。研究的三种(新鲜冷冻)血浆分别是检疫(Q-FFP),亚甲基蓝(MB-FFP)和溶剂/洗涤剂(S / D-FFP)血浆。主要结果是移植期间输注血浆的量。次要结果包括术中失血,止血变量校正和不良事件。结果:一百名患者被随机分为MB-FFP组,S / D-FFP组96名和Q-FFP组97名。使用MB-FFP,S / D-FFP和Q-FFP输注血浆的中位体积分别为2254、1905和1798 mL。这三种等离子体不相等。 MB-FFP不等同于其他两个等离子体,但S / D-FFP和Q-FFP是等效的。使用MB-FFP,S / D-FFP和Q-FFP输注血浆单位的中位数分别为10、10和8个单位。对出血危险因素的调整减少了两组之间的差异:与Q-FFP相比,MB-FFP输注的多余血浆量从24%降至14%。三组之间的失血量和凝血因子校正无明显差异。结论:与Q-FFP和S / D-FFP相比,MB-FFP的使用与输注量的适度增加相关,部分原因是单位体积和出血风险因素的差异。与S / D-FFP或MB-FFP相比,Q-FFP与更少的输血单位相关。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号