Background: Transfusion practices among intensive care unit (ICU) patients with sepsis vary widely. While restrictive hemoglobin thresholds for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion are well studied, the indications and thresholds for platelet and plasma transfusions remain uncertain. Methods: We performed a sepsis-specific sub-analysis of the International Point Prevalence Study of Intensive Care Unit Transfusion Practices, a prospective, multicenter, observational study capturing all adult ICU admissions during four pre-scheduled weeks between March 2019 and October 2022. Patients admitted with sepsis or septic shock, or who developed sepsis during their ICU stay, were included. We recorded demographics, daily laboratory values, and transfusion triggers. Primary endpoints were the proportions of patients receiving RBCs, platelets, or plasma; secondary endpoints were indications, pre-transfusion thresholds, and blood loss. Results: Among 3643 screened patients, 799 (22%) fulfilled sepsis criteria; within this subgroup, 317 (40%) received at least one blood component. RBCs were transfused in 269 patients (34%), primarily to address anemia or hemodynamic instability, at a mean pre-transfusion hemoglobin of 7.5 ± 1.4 g/dL, consistent with restrictive practice. Platelets were given to 78 patients (10%) for prophylaxis or active bleeding at a median count of 26 × 109 cells/L (interquartile range 16-51 × 109 cells/L). Plasma was administered to 108 patients (14%), half for bleeding control and half for non-bleeding indications. Conclusions: This largest international snapshot of septic ICU transfusion practices confirms adherence to restrictive RBC thresholds but reveals substantial variability in platelet and plasma use. These findings underscore the need for targeted trials to refine transfusion guidelines in sepsis.

Global transfusion practices in septic patients in the intensive care unit: insights from the InPUT-study sub-analysis

Pota, Vincenzo;
2025

Abstract

Background: Transfusion practices among intensive care unit (ICU) patients with sepsis vary widely. While restrictive hemoglobin thresholds for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion are well studied, the indications and thresholds for platelet and plasma transfusions remain uncertain. Methods: We performed a sepsis-specific sub-analysis of the International Point Prevalence Study of Intensive Care Unit Transfusion Practices, a prospective, multicenter, observational study capturing all adult ICU admissions during four pre-scheduled weeks between March 2019 and October 2022. Patients admitted with sepsis or septic shock, or who developed sepsis during their ICU stay, were included. We recorded demographics, daily laboratory values, and transfusion triggers. Primary endpoints were the proportions of patients receiving RBCs, platelets, or plasma; secondary endpoints were indications, pre-transfusion thresholds, and blood loss. Results: Among 3643 screened patients, 799 (22%) fulfilled sepsis criteria; within this subgroup, 317 (40%) received at least one blood component. RBCs were transfused in 269 patients (34%), primarily to address anemia or hemodynamic instability, at a mean pre-transfusion hemoglobin of 7.5 ± 1.4 g/dL, consistent with restrictive practice. Platelets were given to 78 patients (10%) for prophylaxis or active bleeding at a median count of 26 × 109 cells/L (interquartile range 16-51 × 109 cells/L). Plasma was administered to 108 patients (14%), half for bleeding control and half for non-bleeding indications. Conclusions: This largest international snapshot of septic ICU transfusion practices confirms adherence to restrictive RBC thresholds but reveals substantial variability in platelet and plasma use. These findings underscore the need for targeted trials to refine transfusion guidelines in sepsis.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11591/572785
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact