Immune and nonimmune causes of low recovery from leukodepleted platelet transfusions: A prospective study

Department of Hematology, Erasmus Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Annals of Hematology (Impact Factor: 2.63). 07/2003; 82(6):357-62. DOI: 10.1007/s00277-003-0648-7
Source: PubMed


Alloantibodies against HLA antigens can be reduced by applying leukodepletion to transfusions. Because the importance of immunological and nonimmunological causes of poor platelet transfusion results using leukodepleted transfusions is not clear, we conducted a prospective study in an unselected patient population receiving leukodepleted transfusions. In 97 patients with hematological malignancies, 181 random leukodepleted platelet transfusions were studied for immunological causes of poor platelet transfusion results by calculating the odds ratio of four different screening tests for a low platelet recovery. Nonimmune causes were also studied by calculating the odds ratio of the most prevalent nonimmune causes for a low platelet recovery. No single screening test showed an association with recovery after 1 and 16 h following a platelet transfusion. The combination of a positive enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and platelet immunofluorescence test (PIFT) or a combination of a positive lymphocyte immunofluorescence test (LIFT) and PIFT, demonstrating an association with a low platelet recovery after 16 h, was present in 2% of all platelet transfusions. Of nonimmune causes, splenomegaly and storage time of platelets for more than 3 days were associated with low platelet recovery after 1 h and 16 h of being present in 29% and 47% of all platelet transfusions, respectively. Immunological causes account for a small proportion of poor platelet transfusion results compared to nonimmunological causes in a nonselected patient population receiving leukodepleted transfusions.

14 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Alloantibody tests demonstrate immunological causes of insufficient increments in random platelet transfusions. The value of a positive or negative test result in predicting the outcome of human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-matched transfusions in patients refractory to leucodepleted random platelet transfusions has not been assessed. We retrospectively evaluated the outcome of the first HLA-matched platelet transfusion in 72 patients with haematological diseases in two ways: first, the strategy according to which the patient was selected for HLA-matched platelet transfusions was analysed. The strategies were: (i) results of alloantibody tests were not available, (ii) a positive alloantibody test, (iii) a negative alloantibody test. Secondly, the outcome of the first HLA-matched transfusion was investigated relative to the results of alloantibody tests, irrespective of the decision strategy. No significant association was found between the decision strategy and the outcome of the first HLA-matched platelet transfusion. Positive alloantibody tests, however, predicted a better outcome of the first HLA-matched platelet transfusion (P = 0.04 and P = 0.03 after 1 and 16 h respectively). In patients refractory to random platelet transfusions, positive alloantibody tests predicted a better outcome of HLA-matched platelet transfusions. Patients with negative alloantibody tests, however, may benefit from HLA-matched platelet transfusions.
    British Journal of Haematology 02/2004; 124(2):244-50. DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2141.2003.04744.x · 4.71 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Alloantibodies against platelets can be detected by using different laboratory tests. Most of these tests, which use panel cells or antigens as a target, perform poorly in non-selected haematological patients. In relation to these tests, a crossmatch test of transfused platelets and patient's serum may be viewed as the standard and may be superior in predicting donor platelet destruction by alloimmunization. In 95 randomly selected thrombocytopenic patients with haematological malignancies, who were receiving leucodepleted blood products, 184 serum samples were studied in an in vitro crossmatch test by using the technique of the platelet immunofluorescence test (crossmatch-PIFT), in an in vivo crossmatch test detecting in vivo binding of immunoglobulins to transfused platelets according to the PIFT technique (in vivo-PIFT), in the indirect PIFT using five random donors as a target (panel-PIFT) and in an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay using immobilized human leucocyte antigens (HLAs) of 100 standardized donors (ELIHLA). The results of all these methods were related to the recovery at 1 and 16 h post-transfusion. The results of the crossmatch-PIFT were not associated with platelet recovery at 1 and 16 h after transfusion. Even in a subgroup of patients, in whom predefined clinical factors were excluded, no association with platelet recovery was found. The results of the crossmatch-PIFT correlated with those of the in vivo-PIFT (P = 0.02); however, 35 (19%) discrepant results were identified between these tests. The results of the crossmatch-PIFT were not related to the panel-PIFT (P = 0.25), but did relate to those of the ELIHLA (P = 0.02), still revealing 36 (20%) discrepant results. None of the in vivo-PIFT, the panel-PIFT or the ELIHLA was associated with platelet recovery after 1 h, whilst only a positive panel-PIFT was associated with poor platelet recovery at 16 h after transfusion (P = 0.03). In a population at low risk for alloimmunization, the correlation of test outcome and platelet recovery is poor. None of these crossmatch tests or screening tests was identified as superior to any other in this population.
    Vox Sanguinis 12/2004; 87(4):291-8. DOI:10.1111/j.1423-0410.2004.00582.x · 2.80 Impact Factor
Show more