ArticleAsian journal of transfusion science
Buffy coat pooled platelets a cost-effective alternative to single-donor apheresis platelets for hemato-oncology patients in the Indian scenario: A randomized cross-over study.
Article in Asian journal of transfusion science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBuffy coat pooled platelets (BCPP) have recently been licensed for clinical use in India and have merits of both the conventional platelet concentrates, i.e., random donor platelets and single-donor apheresis platelets (SDAPs). Repeatedly, finding a ABO-matched donor for hemato-oncology patients is a challenge.
aimThis study aimed to evaluate feasibility, efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of BCPP in nonrefractory, hemato-oncological patients in comparison to SDAP.
methodsIn a randomized cross-over study design, 93 hemato-oncological patients were assigned either BCPP or SDAP as their first transfusion product. On subsequent requisition for the same patient, the other platelet product was issued for transfusion. Corrected count increment (CCI) and percentage platelet recovery (PPR) were calculated 1 h after the transfusion. Intertransfusion interval, posttransfusion platelet increment, and signs of any adverse transfusion reactions were also noted. A cost analysis was also done.
resultsMean posttransfusion platelet increment was observed to be 37043/μL for BCPP and 30839/μL for SDAP. The mean CCI and PPR 1 h after transfusing was 15003 and 36.42% for BCPP and 15554 and 38.04% for SDAP. The median intertransfusion interval was 96 h after BCPP and 72 h after SDAP transfusion. Multivariate analysis shows that the BCPP is noninferior to SDAP for CCI (-549, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1129--30), PPR (-1.62, 95% CI: -3.02--0.21), superior for platelet increment (6202, 95% CI: 4742-7661), and for intertransfusion interval (35, 95% CI: 10.5-59.5). No transfusion reactions were reported in any of the patients enrolled. BCPP costs 61% less than the SDAP in our setup.
conclusionThis study suggests that in nonrefractory, hemato-oncological patients BCPP is noninferior to SDAP in terms of 1-h posttransfusion CCI and PPR. BCPP costs significantly less and can act as a good alternative to SDAP in resource-constrained settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.