-
Periodontology 2000 Feb 2024Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) has been characterized as a regenerative biomaterial that is fully resorbed within a typical 2-3 week period. Very recently, however, a...
Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) has been characterized as a regenerative biomaterial that is fully resorbed within a typical 2-3 week period. Very recently, however, a novel heating process was shown to extend the working properties of PRP/PRF from a standard 2-3 week period toward a duration of 4-6 months. Numerous clinicians have now utilized this extended-PRF (e-PRF) membrane as a substitute for collagen barrier membranes in various clinical applications, such as guided tissue/bone regeneration. This review article summarizes the scientific work to date on this novel technology, including its current and future applications in periodontology, implant dentistry, orthopedics and facial aesthetics. A systematic review was conducted investigating key terms including "Bio-Heat," "albumin gel," "albumin-PRF," "Alb-PRF," "extended-PRF," "e-PRF," "activated plasma albumin gel," and "APAG" by searching databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed. Findings from preclinical studies demonstrate that following a simple 10-min heating process, the transformation of the liquid plasma albumin layer into a gel-like injectable albumin gel extends the resorption properties to at least 4 months according to ISO standard 10 993 (subcutaneous animal model). Several clinical studies have now demonstrated the use of e-PRF membranes as a replacement for collagen membranes in GTR/GBR procedures, closing lateral windows in sinus grafting procedures, for extraction site management, and as a stable biological membrane during recession coverage procedures. Furthermore, Alb-PRF may also be injected as a regenerative biological filler that lasts extended periods with advantages in joint injections, osteoarthritis and in the field of facial aesthetics. This article highlights the marked improvement in the stability and degradation properties of the novel Alb-PRF/e-PRF technology with its widespread future potential use as a potential replacement for collagen membranes with indications including extraction site management, GBR procedures, lateral sinus window closure, recession coverage among others, and further highlights its use as a biological regenerative filler for joint injections and facial aesthetics. It is hoped that this review will pioneer future opportunities and research development in the field, leading to further progression toward more natural and less costly biomaterials for use in medicine and dentistry.
Topics: Animals; Humans; Biocompatible Materials; Bone Regeneration; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Membranes, Artificial; Platelet-Rich Fibrin
PubMed: 37986559
DOI: 10.1111/prd.12537 -
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aug 2023Skin and soft tissue aging has been an important topic of discussion among plastic surgeons and their patients. While botulinum toxin, facial fillers, chemical peels,... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Skin and soft tissue aging has been an important topic of discussion among plastic surgeons and their patients. While botulinum toxin, facial fillers, chemical peels, and surgical lifts preside as the mainstay of treatment to restore appearance of youth, emergent technologies, such as CRISPR-Cas9, proteostasis, flap biology, and stem cell therapies, have gained traction in addressing the aging process of skin and soft tissue. Several studies have introduced these advancements, but it remains unclear how safe and effective these therapeutics are in facial rejuvenation, and how they may fit in the existent treatment workflow for soft tissue aging.
MATERIALS/METHODS
A systematic literature review was conducted to identify and assess therapeutics utilized in addressing skin and soft tissue aging. Variables collected included year of publication, journal, article title, organization of study, patient sample, treatment modality, associated outcomes. In addition, we performed a market analysis of companies involved in promoting technologies and therapeutics within this space. PitchBook (Seattle, WA), a public market database, was utilized to classify companies, and record the amount of venture capital funding allocated to these categories.
RESULTS
Initial review yielded four hundred and two papers. Of these, thirty-five were extracted after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Though previous literature regards CRISPR-Cas9 technology as the most favorable anti-aging innovation, after reviewing the current literature, stem cell therapies utilizing recipient chimerism appeared to be the superior skin anti-aging technique when accounting for possible disadvantages of various techniques. The psychosocial and cosmetic outcomes from using cell therapy to modulate allograft survival and tolerance may confer more long-term proposed benefits than the technologies in CRISPR-Cas9, flap biology innovations, and autologous platelet-rich plasma use. Market analysis yielded a total of 87 companies, which promoted innovations in technology, biotechnology, biopharmaceuticals, cell-based therapies, and genetic therapy.
CONCLUSION
This review provides physicians and patients with relevant, usable information regarding how therapeutics can impact treatment regimen for facial aesthetics and skin rejuvenation. Furthermore, the goal of this research is to elucidate the varying therapeutics to restore appearance of youth, present associated outcomes, and in doing so, present plastic surgeons and their colleagues with greater insight on the role of these therapeutics and technologies in clinical practice. Future studies can further assess the safety and efficacy of these innovations and discuss how these may fit within surgical plans among patients seeking rejuvenation procedures.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III
This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Cosmetic Techniques; Aging; Skin Aging; Face; Rejuvenation; Esthetics
PubMed: 37154849
DOI: 10.1007/s00266-023-03322-1 -
Cells Jul 2023The current review aims to provide an overview of the most recent research on the potentials of concentrated growth factors used in the maxillary sinus lift technique. (Review)
Review
Maxillary Sinus Augmentation Using Autologous Platelet Concentrates (Platelet-Rich Plasma, Platelet-Rich Fibrin, and Concentrated Growth Factor) Combined with Bone Graft: A Systematic Review.
BACKGROUND
The current review aims to provide an overview of the most recent research on the potentials of concentrated growth factors used in the maxillary sinus lift technique.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
"PRP", "PRF", "L-PRF", "CGF", "oral surgery", "sticky bone", "sinus lift" were the search terms utilized in the databases Scopus, Web of Science, and Pubmed, with the Boolean operator "AND" and "OR".
RESULTS
Of these 1534 studies, 22 publications were included for this review.
DISCUSSION
The autologous growth factors released from platelet concentrates can help to promote bone remodeling and cell proliferation, and the application of platelet concentrates appears to reduce the amount of autologous bone required during regenerative surgery. Many authors agree that growth factors considerably enhance early vascularization in bone grafts and have a significantly positive pro-angiogenic influence in vivo when combined with alloplastic and xenogeneic materials, reducing inflammation and postoperative pain and stimulating the regeneration of injured tissues and accelerating their healing.
CONCLUSIONS
Even if further studies are still needed, the use of autologous platelet concentrates can improve clinical results where a large elevation of the sinus is needed by improving bone height, thickness and vascularization of surgical sites, and post-operative healing.
Topics: Maxillary Sinus; Bone Regeneration; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Intercellular Signaling Peptides and Proteins; Fibrin
PubMed: 37443831
DOI: 10.3390/cells12131797 -
Critical Care (London, England) Jul 2023Definitions for massive transfusion (MT) vary widely between studies, contributing to challenges in interpretation of research findings and practice evaluation. In this... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Definitions for massive transfusion (MT) vary widely between studies, contributing to challenges in interpretation of research findings and practice evaluation. In this first systematic review, we aimed to identify all MT definitions used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to date to inform the development of consensus definitions for MT.
METHODS
We systematically searched the following databases for RCTs from inception until 11 August 2022: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Transfusion Evidence Library. Ongoing trials were sought from CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to fulfil all the following three criteria: (1) be an RCT; (2) include an adult patient population with major bleeding who had received, or were anticipated to receive, an MT in any clinical setting; and (3) specify a definition for MT as an inclusion criterion or outcome measure.
RESULTS
Of the 8,458 distinct references identified, 30 trials were included for analysis (19 published, 11 ongoing). Trauma was the most common clinical setting in published trials, while for ongoing trials, it was obstetrics. A total of 15 different definitions of MT were identified across published and ongoing trials, varying greatly in cut-offs for volume transfused and time period. Almost all definitions specified the number of red blood cells (RBCs) within a set time period, with none including plasma, platelets or other haemostatic agents that are part of contemporary transfusion resuscitation. For completed trials, the most commonly used definition was transfusion of ≥ 10 RBC units in 24 h (9/19, all in trauma), while for ongoing trials it was 3-5 RBC units (n = 7), with the timing for transfusion being poorly defined, or in some trials not provided at all (n = 5).
CONCLUSIONS
Transfusion of ≥ 10 RBC units within 24 h was the most commonly used definition in published RCTs, while lower RBC volumes are being used in ongoing RCTs. Any consensus definitions should reflect the need to incorporate different blood components/products for MT and agree on whether a 'one-size-fits-all' approach should be used across different clinical settings.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Hemorrhage; Hemostatics; Blood Transfusion; Blood Platelets; Erythrocyte Transfusion
PubMed: 37407998
DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04537-z -
JAMA Network Open Jan 2024The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
The NAPOLI 3 trial showed the superiority of fluorouracil, leucovorin, liposomal irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (NALIRIFOX) over the combination of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NABP) as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Analyses comparing NALIRIFOX and GEM-NABP with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) have not yet been reported.
OBJECTIVE
To derive survival, response, and toxic effects data from phase 3 clinical trials and compare NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, and GEM-NABP.
DATA SOURCES
After a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology meetings' libraries, Kaplan-Meier curves were extracted from phase 3 clinical trials conducted from January 1, 2011, until September 12, 2023.
STUDY SELECTION
Phase 3 clinical trials that tested NALIRIFOX, FOLFIRINOX, or GEM-NABP as first-line treatment of metastatic PDAC and reported overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) curves were selected. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Individual Participant Data reporting guidelines.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Individual patient OS and PFS data were extracted from Kaplan-Meier plots of original trials via a graphic reconstructive algorithm. Overall response rates (ORRs) and grade 3 or higher toxic effects rates were also collected. A pooled analysis was conducted, and results were validated via a network meta-analysis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary end point was OS. Secondary outcomes included PFS, ORR, and toxic effects rates.
RESULTS
A total of 7 trials with data on 2581 patients were analyzed, including 383 patients treated with NALIRIFOX, 433 patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, and 1756 patients treated with GEM-NABP. Median PFS was longer in patients treated with NALIRIFOX (7.4 [95% CI, 6.1-7.7] months) or FOLFIRINOX (7.3 [95% CI, 6.5-7.9] months; [HR], 1.21 [95% CI, 0.86-1.70]; P = .28) compared with patients treated with GEM-NABP (5.7 [95% CI, 5.6-6.1] months; HR vs NALIRIFOX, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.22-1.73]; P < .001). Similarly, GEM-NABP was associated with poorer OS (10.4 [95% CI, 9.8-10.8]; months) compared with NALIRIFOX (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.00-1.39]; P = .05], while no difference was observed between FOLFIRINOX (11.7 [95% CI, 10.4-13.0] months) and NALIRIFOX (11.1 [95% CI, 10.1-12.3] months; HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.81-1.39]; P = .65). There were no statistically significant differences in ORR among NALIRIFOX (41.8%), FOLFIRINOX (31.6%), and GEM-NABP (35.0%). NALIRIFOX was associated with lower incidence of grade 3 or higher hematological toxic effects (eg, platelet count decreased 1.6% vs 11.8% with FOLFIRINOX and 10.8% with GEM-NABP), but higher rates of severe diarrhea compared with GEM-NABP (20.3% vs 15.7%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, NALIRIFOX and FOLFIRINOX were associated with similar PFS and OS as first-line treatment of advanced PDAC, although NALIRIFOX was associated with a different toxicity profile. Careful patient selection, financial toxic effects consideration, and direct comparison between FOLFIRINOX and NALIRIFOX are warranted.
Topics: Humans; Pancreatic Neoplasms; Irinotecan; Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Leucovorin; Oxaliplatin; Gemcitabine; Fluorouracil; Adenocarcinoma
PubMed: 38190183
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.50756 -
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders Nov 2023There are many injectable treatments for knee osteoarthritis with different characteristics and effects, the aim is to understand which one can lead to better and safer... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
There are many injectable treatments for knee osteoarthritis with different characteristics and effects, the aim is to understand which one can lead to better and safer results.
METHODS
The PRISMA principles were followed when doing the literature search. Web of Science databases, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and the Wanfang database were searched to identified randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of corticosteroids (CSC), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), hyaluronic acid (HA), and combination therapy in treating KOA. Risk of bias was assessed using the relevant Cochrane tools (version 1.0). The outcome measure included the visual analog scale (VAS) score, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) score, and treatment-related adverse events. The network meta-analysis was performed using STATA17 software and a Bayesian stratified random effects model.
RESULTS
Network meta-analysis using the Bayesian random-effects model revealed 35 studies with 3104 participants. PRP showed the best WOMAC score at a 3-month follow-up, followed by PRP + HA, HA, placebo, and CSC; PRP + HA scored the highest VAS, followed by PRP, CSC, HA, and placebo. PRP, CSC, HA, and placebo had the highest WOMAC scores six months following treatment; PRP + HA showed the best VAS scores. PRP showed the best WOMAC score at 12 months, followed by PRP + HA, HA, placebo, and CSC; The best VAS score was obtained with PRP, followed by PRP + HA, HA, and CSC. No therapy demonstrated a rise in adverse events linked to the treatment in terms of safety.
CONCLUSIONS
The current study found that PRP and PRP + HA were the most successful in improving function and alleviating pain after 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up. CSC, HA, PRP, and combination therapy did not result in an increase in the incidence of treatment-related side events as compared to placebo.
Topics: Humans; Hyaluronic Acid; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Treatment Outcome; Injections, Intra-Articular; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Adrenal Cortex Hormones
PubMed: 38037038
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-023-06925-6 -
Frontiers in Medicine 2023In recent years, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for osteoarthritis (OA) have been widely promoted in clinical practice, but their effectiveness is controversial....
BACKGROUND
In recent years, platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for osteoarthritis (OA) have been widely promoted in clinical practice, but their effectiveness is controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy and safety of PRP injections for the treatment of OA.
METHODS
We searched databases including Embase, Web of Science, Medline, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies. Two researchers (YQX and CG) performed literature screening, baseline data extraction, literature quality assessment, and heterogeneity analysis of RCTs from the retrieved studies. Based on the magnitude of heterogeneity , random-effects or fixed-effects models were selected for the meta-analysis.
RESULTS
We included 24 RCTs comprising 1344 patients with OA who met the inclusion criteria, with the main types of morbidity being knee osteoarthritis (KOA), hip osteoarthritis (HOA), ankle osteoarthritis (AOA), and temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJOA). Our results indicate that PRP injections were effective in improving Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores in patients with KOA, HOA, and AOA compared to controls (AOA, MD = -1.15, CI = 95% [-1.74, -0.56], = 40%, < 0.05; KOA, MD = -1.03, CI = 95% [-1.16, -0.9], = 87%, < 0.05; TMJOA, MD = -1.35, CI = 95% [-1.74, -0.97], = 92%, < 0.05) but showed no significant efficacy in patients with HOA (MD = -0.27, CI = 95% [-0.8, 0.26], = 56%, >0.05). Compared to controls, PRP injections were effective in improving Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), including the patient's pain symptoms, activities of daily living (ADL), and adhesion symptomatology, but not for that of sports function (KOOS-pain, MD = 2.77, CI = 95% [0, 5.53], = 0%, < 0.05; KOOS-symptoms, MD = 3.73, CI = 95% [0.76, 6.71], = 0%, < 0.05; KOOS-ADL, MD = 3.61, CI = 95% [0.79, 6.43], = 0%, < 0.05; KOOS-QOL, MD = 4.66, CI = 95% [0.98, 8.35], = 29%, < 0.05, KOOS-sport, MD = 0.48, CI = 95% [-3.02, 3.98], = 0%, > 0.05). PRP injections were effective in improving Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, including pain, stiffness, and functional joint motion, in patients with OA compared with the control group (WOMAC-pain, MD = -1.08, CI = 95% [-1.62, -0.53], = 87%, < 0.05; WOMAC-stiffness, MD = -1.17, CI = 88% [-1.72, -0.63], = 87%, < 0.05; WOMAC-function, MD = -1.12, CI = 95% [-1.65, -0.58], = 87%, < 0.05). In addition, subgroup analysis showed that leukocyte-poor (LP) PRP injections were more effective than leukocyte-rich (LR) PRP injections in improving pain symptoms in patients with OA (VAS, LR-PRP, MD = -0.81, CI = 95% [-1.65, -0.03], = 83%, = 0.06 > 0.05; LP-PRP, MD = -1.62, CI = 95% [-2.36, -0.88], = 92%, < 0.05). A subgroup analysis based on injection sites showed that no statistical difference in efficacy between intra-articular (IA) combined with intra-osseous (IO) simultaneous PRP injections. IA PRP injections only improved VAS pain scores in patients with OA (IA+IO PRP injections, MD = -0.74, CI =95% [-1.29, -0.18], = 61%, < 0.05; IA PRP injections, MD = -1.43, CI = 95% [-2.18, -0.68], = 87%, < 0.05, test for subgroup differences, > 0.05, = 52.7%).
CONCLUSION
PRP injection therapy can safely and effectively improve functional activity in patients with OA and produce positive analgesic effects in patients with KOA, TMJOA, and AOA. However, PRP injection therapy did not significantly reduce pain symptoms in patients with HOA. In addition, the analgesic effect of LP-PRP was greater than that of LR-PRP.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022362066.
PubMed: 37441691
DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1204144 -
European Heart Journal. Cardiovascular... Jul 2023Multiple guidelines and consensus papers have addressed the role of antithrombotic strategies in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD). Since evidence...
Multiple guidelines and consensus papers have addressed the role of antithrombotic strategies in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD). Since evidence and terminology continue to evolve, the authors undertook a consensus initiative to guide clinicians to select the optimal antithrombotic regimen for each patient. The aim of this document is to provide an update for clinicians on best antithrombotic strategies in patients with established CAD, classifying each treatment option in relation to the number of antithrombotic drugs irrespective of whether the traditional mechanism of action is expected to mainly inhibit platelets or coagulation cascade. With the aim to reach comprehensiveness of available evidence, we systematically reviewed and performed meta-analyses by means of both direct and indirect comparisons to inform the present consensus document.
Topics: Humans; Coronary Artery Disease; Fibrinolytic Agents; Blood Coagulation
PubMed: 37120728
DOI: 10.1093/ehjcvp/pvad032 -
Biomedicines Aug 2023Low back pain (LBP) has a high economic burden and is strongly related to the degenerative process of the spine, especially in the intervertebral disc and of the facet... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Low back pain (LBP) has a high economic burden and is strongly related to the degenerative process of the spine, especially in the intervertebral disc and of the facet joints. Numerous treatment modalities have been proposed for the management of LBP, and the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has emerged as an innovative therapeutic option for degenerative disease of the spine. The present study aims to evaluate the efficacy of PRP injections in managing low back pain.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations, a registered at PROSPERO Systematic Reviews Platform, under number CRD42021268491. The PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched to identify relevant articles, along with hand searching to identify gray literature articles, with no language restrictions. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), nonrandomized trials (NRTs), and case series (CSs) with more than 10 patients were considered eligible. The quality assessment and the risk of bias of the randomized clinical trials were evaluated using the RoB II tool. An evaluation of the description of the preparation methods was performed using an adapted version of the MIBO checklist.
RESULTS
An electronic database search resulted in 2324 articles, and after the exclusion of noneligible articles, 13 RCTs and 27 NRTs or CSs were analyzed. Of the 13 RCTs, 11 found favorable results in comparison to the control group in pain and disability, one showed no superiority to the control group, and one was discontinued because of the lack of therapeutic effect at eight-week evaluation. Description of the PRP preparation techniques were found in almost all papers. The overall risk of bias was considered high in 2 papers and low in 11. An adapted MIBO checklist showed a 72.7% compliance rate in the selected areas.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we analyzed articles from English, Spanish and Russian language, from large databases and grey literature. PRP was in general an effective and safe treatment for degenerative LPB. Positive results were found in almost studies, a small number of adverse events were related, the risk of bias of the RCTs was low. Based on the evaluation of the included studies, we graded as level II the quality of the evidence supporting the use of PRP in LBP. Large-scale, multicenter RCTs are still needed to confirm these findings.
PubMed: 37760845
DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines11092404 -
European Journal of Pediatrics Aug 2023Platelet transfusions (PTx) are the principal approach for treating neonatal thrombocytopenia, a common hematological abnormality affecting neonates, particularly... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Platelet transfusions (PTx) are the principal approach for treating neonatal thrombocytopenia, a common hematological abnormality affecting neonates, particularly preterm infants. However, evidence about the outcomes associated with PTx and whether they provide clinical benefit or harm is lacking. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the association between PTx in preterm infants and mortality, major bleeding, sepsis, and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) in comparison to not transfusing or using different platelet count thresholds for transfusion. A broad electronic search in three databases was performed in December 2022. We included randomized controlled trials, and cohort and case control studies of preterm infants with thrombocytopenia that (i) compared treatment with platelet transfusion vs. no platelet transfusion, (ii) assessed the platelet count threshold for PTx, or (iii) compared single to multiple PTx. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the association between PTx and mortality, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), sepsis, and NEC and, in the presence of substantial heterogeneity, leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was performed. We screened 625 abstracts and 50 full texts and identified 18 reports of 13 eligible studies. The qualitative analysis of the included studies revealed controversial results as several studies showed an association between PTx in preterm infants and a higher risk of mortality, major bleeding, sepsis, and NEC, while others did not present a significant relationship. The meta-analysis results suggest a significant association between PTx and mortality (RR 2.4, 95% CI 1.8-3.4; p < 0.0001), as well as sepsis (RR 4.5, 95% CI 3.7-5.6; p < 0.0001), after a leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. There was also found a significant correlation between PTx and NEC (RR 5.2, 95% CI 3.3-8.3; p < 0.0001). As we were not able to reduce heterogeneity in the assessment of the relationship between PTx and IVH, no conclusion could be taken. Conclusion: Platelet transfusions in preterm infants are associated to a higher risk of death, sepsis, and NEC and, possibly, to a higher incidence of IVH. Further studies are needed to confirm these associations, namely between PTx and IVH, and to define the threshold from which PTx should be given with less harm effect. What is Known: • Platelet transfusions are given to preterm infants with thrombocytopenia either to treat bleeding or to prevent hemorrhage. • Lack of consensual criteria for transfusion. What is New: • A significant association between platelet transfusions and mortality, sepsis, and NEC.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Infant, Premature; Hemorrhage; Enterocolitis, Necrotizing; Thrombocytopenia; Sepsis
PubMed: 37258776
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-023-05031-y