Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34671971›Full record

Trial reportAnaesthesia2022

Early cryoprecipitate transfusion versus standard care in severe postpartum haemorrhage: a pilot cluster-randomised trial.

L Green, J Daru, F J Gonzalez Carreras, D Lanz, M C Pardo, T Pérez, S Philip, T Tanqueray, K S Khan

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Anaesthesia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

L GreenDepartment of Haematology, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London and NHS Blood and Transplant, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4063-9768
J DaruBarts Research Centre for Women's Health, Queen Mary University of London, UK.
F J Gonzalez CarrerasBarts Research Centre for Women's Health, Queen Mary University of London, UK.
D LanzBarts Research Centre for Women's Health, Queen Mary University of London, UK.
M C PardoDepartment of Statistics and Operational Research, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
T PérezDepartment of Statistics and Data Science, Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
S PhilipDepartment of Anaesthesia, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
T TanquerayDepartment of Obstetrics, Homerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
K S KhanDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
Queen Mary University of London · GBUniversidad Complutense de Madrid · ESBarts Health NHS Trust · GBHomerton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBNHS Blood and Transplant · GBUniversidad de Granada · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a lack of evidence evaluating cryoprecipitate transfusion in severe postpartum haemorrhage. We performed a pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial to evaluate the feasibility of a trial on early cryoprecipitate delivery in severe postpartum haemorrhage. Pregnant women (>24 weeks gestation), actively bleeding within 24 h of delivery and who required at least one unit of red blood cells were eligible. Women declining transfusion in advance or with inherited clotting deficiencies were not eligible. Four UK hospitals were randomly allocated to deliver either the intervention (administration of two pools of cryoprecipitate within 90 min of first red blood cell unit requested plus standard care), or the control group treatment (standard care, where cryoprecipitate is administered later or not at all). The primary outcome was the proportion of women who received early cryoprecipitate (intervention) vs. standard care (control). Secondary outcomes included consent rates, acceptability of the intervention, safety outcomes and preliminary clinical outcome data to inform a definitive trial. Between March 2019 and January 2020, 199 participants were recruited; 19 refused consent, leaving 180 for analysis (110 in the intervention and 70 in the control group). Adherence to assigned treatment was 32% (95%CI 23-41%) in the intervention group vs. 81% (95%CI 70-90%) in the control group. The proportion of women receiving cryoprecipitate at any time-point was higher in the intervention (60%) vs. control (31%) groups; the former had fewer red blood cell transfusions at 24 h (mean difference -0.6 units, 95%CI -1.2 to 0); overall surgical procedures (odds ratio 0.6, 95%CI 0.3-1.1); and intensive care admissions (odds ratio 0.4, 95%CI 0.1-1.1). There was no increase in serious adverse or thrombotic events in the intervention group. Staff interviews showed that lack of awareness and uncertainty about study responsibilities contributed to lower adherence in the intervention group. We conclude that a full-scale trial may be feasible, provided that protocol revisions are put in place to establish clear lines of communication for ordering early cryoprecipitate in order to improve adherence. Preliminary clinical outcomes associated with cryoprecipitate administration are encouraging and merit further investigation.

Indexed as

Patient AcuityAdultBlood TransfusionCluster AnalysisFactor VIIIFemaleFibrinogenHumansPilot ProjectsPostpartum HemorrhagePregnancycryoprecipitate coagulumFactor VIIIFibrinogenhaematological agentshaemostaticspilot projectspostpartum haemorrhage

Identifiers

PMID34671971
PMCPMC9298397
OpenAlexW3207066820

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.