ASH Clinical News February 2016 | Page 70

Bad Blood to some degree, particularly for acutely ill patients, or perioperative patients that are less sick. Chances are that fresh blood won’t improve their lot either.” Next up was the Red-Cell Storage Duration Study (RECESS), a multicenter, prospective trial examining 1,481 patients 12 years or older who were undergoing complex cardiac surgery and were likely to need an RBC transfusion.8 The RECESS patient population included 1,481 cardiac surgery patients who were selected to receive blood either housed for ≤10 days or for ≥21 days. To determine the effect of blood storage duration on patient outcomes, the investigators measured the change in each patient’s Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score (MODS), then compared the scores from before surgery with scores obtained seven days after surgery (or until the patient’s time of death or discharge, whichever came first). The investigators found no significant differences between the two groups, even after comparing the change in MODS for only post-operative scores. The mean change in the MODS score at seven days (the study’s primary outcome was 8.5 (out of a 24-point scale) in the short-term storage group and 8.7 points in the longerterm storage group (p=0.44). There were also no significant differences between the groups for all-cause mortality, 28-day change in MODS, length of hospital stay, or length of ICU stay, leading the authors to conclude that “a between-group difference of 1 point or less in the change in MODS is unlikely What is the Big Deal About Leukoreduction? Leukoreduction is the process of removing white blood cells (WBCs) from blood before storage.1 Decades’ worth of research has shown that removal of leukocytes is associated with improved clinical outcomes, such as a reduction in the incidence and severity of febrile transfusion reactions, a reduction in the risk of cytomegalovirus transfusion, and a reduced risk of alloimmune platelet refractoriness.2 Leukocytes are considered a contaminant of other cellular blood components, including RBCs, and they have been recognized as a contributor to – if not the cause of – a number of transfusion-related adverse events, including immunologically mediated effects, infectious disease transmission, and reperfusion injury. In other words, “leukocytes in the red cells have no clinical value,” Dr. Hébert stated. “But the potential harms attributed to them [in banked blood] are substantial. Generally speaking, the white cells go along for the ride, but no good comes of them being in the bag.” Given the benefits of leukoreduction, 20 countries (including Canada, New Zealand, much of the European Union, the United Kingdom, the United Aram Emirates, and Qatar) have mandated universal leukocyte reduction (ULR) as a matter of public blood safety policy. When Canada implemented its leukoreduction policy, Dr. Hébert and colleagues evaluated its role in decreasing post-operative mortality and infection. Compared with a control period, they noted that leukoreduction lowered the odds of death, but not serious nosocomial infections. However, it did cut the frequency of post-transfusion fevers.3 The U.S. FDA does not mandate ULR of RBCs, although the agency’s blood product advisory committee has twice called for a ULR protocol to be implemented. However, the additional cost of leukocyte reduction has delayed implementation of the policy in the United States. “The differences in practice, belief, and opinion on how best to spend money for blood components has formed the basis for the controversy in the United States over ULR,” according to one set of experts. “In fact, the ULR debate has become so politicized that it has become one of the most divisive issues in the history of U.S. transfusion medicine.”4 REFERENCES 1. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. “What is a blood transfusion?” Accessed January 9, 2015 from https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/bt. 2. Blajchman MA. The clinical benefits of the leukoreduction of blood products. J Trauma. 2006;60(Suppl 6):S83-90. 3. Hébert PC, et al. Clinical outcomes following institution of the Canadian universal leukoreduction program for red blood cell transfusions. JAMA. 2003;89:1941-9. 4. Bassuni M, Blajchman M, Al-Moshary M. Why implement universal leukoreduction? Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther. 200 8;1:106−123. 68 ASH Clinical News to be clinically significant or to warrant a major change in the practice of blood banking,” according to lead investigator Marie Steiner, MD, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. Although RECESS looked at fresher blood versus middle-aged blood (not the oldest stored blood), Dr. Roback praised the trial for being one of the largest, most well-designed RCTs published on the age of transfused blood. The Fresher, the Better? Of course, RECESS and ABLE were not performed specifically in patients with blood disorders. For hematologists, results from the TOTAL trial hit closer to home, according to Dr. Kleinman. In TOTAL, the findings of which were presented at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting, 290 children (age range = 6-60 months) with malaria or sickle cell disease were randomized to receive leukoreduced RBCs that had been stored for one to 10 days versus 25 to 35 days.9 Investigators looked specifically at whether refrigerated blood storage diminished the blood’s ability to transfer oxygen to tissues, as measured by transfused patient’s blood lactate levels, explaining that, when tissue oxygen levels are critically low, lactate levels rise, and when tissues are successfully re-oxygenated, lactate levels may fall again. ”We still don’t know at what point blood gets ‘very old’ and potentially dangerous. To push the limit ... in patients becomes unethical.” —PAUL HÉBERT, MD Mean lactate levels were not statistically different between the two groups and neither were 30-day recovery rates, they stated, suggesting that longer-storage RBCs are not inferior to shorter-storage RBCs. In Dr. Kleinman’s estimation, the results from the TOTAL trial have been overlooked. “This study hasn’t been talked about much, but I believe it moves the debate a little more in favor of the argument that stored blood doesn’t affect clinical outcomes,” he said. Additionally, the TOTAL results may have significance for global health policy decisions regarding the acceptable duration of RBC storage, particularly in developing nations where blood supplies are already limited. Another pediatric study, ARIPI, echoes the TOTAL results, demonstrating that the use of fresh RBCs (≤7 days) compared with standard stored blood did not improve outcomes (including major neonatal morbidities such as intraventricular hemorrhage or nosocomial infection) in premature, very-low-birth-weight infants who required a transfusion.10 Lastly, Dr. Kleinman described a metaanalysis and systematic review evaluating 12 trials with over 5,000 participants that reported the following:11 • Similar risk of death for fresh versus old transfused blood (relative risk [RR] = 1.04; p=0.45) • No difference in adverse event with age of red cells (RR=1.02; p=0.74) • A 9% relative increase in the risk of infection with fresh blood (RR=1.09; p=0.04) An ongoing Canadian multicenter trial, INFORM, may bolster this conclusion, the authors noted. The three-year trial, started in 2012 and completed last year, “aims to determine the effect on in-hospital death rates of transfusing the freshest available blood compared with standardissue blood.” The experts who spoke with ASH Clinical News were divided on how INFORM results may, or may not, affect the “fresh versus old” debate – especially in terms of patients who receive large volumes of end-date blood. “If the investigators are able to do a subgroup analysis of patients who did receive the oldest blood, INFORM may completely change the course of the debate,” Dr. Roback pointed out. Dr. Hébert expressed more skepticism, though. “We all hope that it will give us new information, but the trial is basically comparing ‘front of the fridge’ versus ‘back of the fridge’ blood policies,” he said. “The chances of the investigators finding something beyond what we found [in ABLE] are not likely.” The Debate Rages On Given the similar rates of patient outcomes among ABLE, RECESS, TOTAL, and ARIPI, clinicians may feel that the new-versus-old debate has been settled – but not quite. “In the scientific, academic community, the topic has seen advancement,” Dr. Kleinman said. “These trials offer fairly definitive data, but have those people who are strong proponents of fresh blood changed their minds? That we don’t quite know.” February 2016