Trial reportDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2011
[Conventional vs pathogen-inactivated platelet concentrates for the treatment of perioperative coagulopathy. A prospective cohort study].
Trial report in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Coagulopathy management of multiple injured patients - a comprehensive literature review of the European guideline 2019.EFORT open reviews · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of the present study was to assess ex-vivo function of pathogen-inactivated versus conventional platelet concentrates (PC) in the perioperative setting. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 30 patients who underwent cardiac surgery and who postoperatively depended on the transfusion of two platelet concentrates were enrolled into this study. Of the patients 15 received conventional buffy coat PC (conv. PC) and 15 received pathogen-inactivated PC (PI-PC). Age, volume and platelet content of each PC were recorded. Before (T0) and 30 min after PC transfusion (T1), blood samples were taken and platelet function analyses (MEA) and conventional laboratory coagulation analyses were performed. The transfusion-associated increment of platelet concentration (increment) and the corrected count increment (CCI) were assessed at timepoint T1.
resultsThere were no significant group differences between the groups in MEA analyses or conventional laboratory at T0 or T1. The platelet content per PC was significantly higher in the PI-PC group [3.3 (3.1/3.5)× 10(11) platelets per PI-PC versus 3 (2.9/3)× 10(11) platelets per conv. PC, p<0.001]. Platelet increment (42±27×10(9)/l versus 69.4±29×10(9)/l, p=0.013) was significantly lower in the PI-PC group.
conclusionWhereas ex-vivo analyses of platelet function did not show any group differences at T1, a significantly lower increment was seen in the pilot study after transfusion of PI-PC as compared to conventional PC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21249326What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.