Tag Archives: FFP

Understanding Bleeding Risks in Percutaneous Liver Procedures —Who Needs FFP and Platelet Transfusions

Posted on by

Background: “The most important factor contributing to bleeding risk in patients with liver disease is related to the presence of portal hypertension rather than coagulation abnormalities.1 The changes in the coagulation system in patients with cirrhosis create a re-balanced state, which is prothrombotic. Despite this well-known pathophysiology and recommendation against routine transfusion of blood products (especially fresh frozen plasma) by major guidelines, platelet and fresh frozen plasma transfusion remain a common practice before percutaneous liver procedures.2,3“

Methods: In this retrospective study from three centers in Spain, the researchers enrolled 1797 adults including 316 with cirrhosis (97% had compensated disease). They established a protocol that allowed, at the discretion of the radiologist, to transfuse patients with FFP or platelets if INR was 1.5 or greater or if platelets were 50,000 or below. The primary outcome of the study was major bleeding, which was defined as a drop in hemoglobin (2 or more units) or a need for transfusion of 2 or more units of blood within 1 week after the procedure. This study enrolled patients who underwent percutaneous liver biopsy (86% of cohort) and percutaneous ablation of liver tumors (14% of cohort). Only 6/25 (24%) with INR >1.5 received FFP. 16/22 (72%) with platelet counts below 50,000 received a platelet transfusion. Overall, 7 patients received FFP (1 with cirrhosis, 6 without) and 35 patients received platelets (16 with cirrhosis, 19 without).

Key findings:

  • Only 14 patients (0.8%) experienced major bleeding after the procedure, and there was no difference between those who had a diagnosis of cirrhosis versus those without cirrhosis. Bleeding occurred in 0.6% of patients with cirrhosis compared to 0.8% of those without.
  • Only 1 patient with an ablation procedure had major bleeding
  • Patients with a diagnosis of cirrhosis were more likely to receive a transfusion of any kind
  • Among those with major bleeding, none met the criteria for transfusion. That is, “no variable was identified to predict the risk of major bleeding.”

My take (borrowed from editorial): This study reinforces the recommendation that “correction of coagulation markers before procedures is unnecessary.”

The editorial notes that “the changes in the coagulation system in patients with cirrhosis
create a re-balanced state, which is prothrombotic.

Related blog posts:

Time to Adjust the Knowledge Doubling Curve in Hepatology

Posted on by

In his book, Critical path, Buckminster Fuller (Fuller 1981), American architect, systems theorist, author, designer, inventor, and futurist, created the ‘knowledge doubling curve’. He noticed that until 1900 human knowledge doubled approximately every century and by the end of World War II knowledge was doubling every 25 years (Knowledge is not everything, Paul Chamberlain). Now the doubling of knowledge, in the age of the internet and social media, has become even shorter, perhaps less than a year.

I was thinking about this knowledge doubling curve after reading two practice guidances in a recent issue of Hepatology:

The first guidance is mainly for reference as pediatric gastroenterologists do not focus on reproductive health. The authors do provide guidance on contraceptive options which is an important topic for adolescents. The main guidance is disease-specific information for pregnancy in the setting of underlying liver conditions including liver transplantation, cirrhosis, viral hepatitis, autoimmune hepatitis, PSC, PBC, Wilson’s disease, hepatitis C, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, HELLP, acute fatty liver disease of pregnancy, Budd-Chiari, FNH, hepatocellular adenoma, and others. The guidance also provides recommendations for how to evaluate abnormal liver tests in pregnancy and reviews liver medications during pregnancy (Table 4).

The second guidance reviews the following:

  • An overview of the current understanding of bleeding and thrombosis in cirrhosis.
  • An evidence‐based justification for bleeding risk assessment in patients with cirrhosis before invasive procedures, including current concepts in preprocedural testing and laboratory analysis and their role in predicting bleeding complications.
  • An outline of established and recently identified risk factors for venous thrombosis in the portal and hepatic venous systems in both patients with and without cirrhosis along with thrombophilia testing recommendations.
  • A review of the strengths and weaknesses of the various classification systems for portal vein thrombosis and a proposal for standard nomenclature regarding characterization of portal vein thrombosis location, time course, and progression.

Useful points:

  • In patients with cirrhosis, there are “complex hemostatic changes that are not adequately captured by traditional laboratory measures of hemostasis, such as PT, aPTT, and platelet count.”
  • “Because of conflicting data in the literature, there is no data-driven specific INR or platelet cut-off in which procedural bleeding risk is reliable increased.” In some studies, the authors conclude that “that the low platelet count may have been merely a reflection of advanced portal hypertension and not a causative risk factor for bleeding.”
  • For Platelets in the setting of cirrhosis: “Given the low risk of bleeding of many common procedures, potential risks of platelet transfusion, lack of evidence that elevating the platelet count reduces bleeding risk, and ability to use effective interventions, including transfusion and hemostasis if bleeding occurs, it is reasonable to perform both low‐ and high‐risk procedures without prophylactically correcting the platelet count...An individualized approach to patients with severe thrombocytopenia before procedures is recommended because of the lack of definitive evidence for safety and efficacy of interventions intended to increase platelet counts in patients with cirrhosis.” The authors note in Table 4, that the AASLD does not have a specific threshold for platelets, whereas other societies have used values of >30 or >50.
  • For INR in setting of cirrhosis: “The INR should not be used to gauge procedural bleeding risk in patients with cirrhosis who are not taking vitamin K antagonists (VKAs)…Measures aimed at reducing the INR are not recommended before procedures in patients with cirrhosis who are not taking VKAs…FFP transfusion before procedures is associated with risks and no proven benefits.”
  • The guidance lists a step‐by‐step treatment and surveillance algorithm for portal vein thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis (and without cirrhosis).
  • The guidance provides updated diagnostic, treatment, and management recommendations for sinusoidal obstruction syndrome (formerly known as hepatic-veno-occlusive disease), hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia, and hepatic vein thrombosis (aka Budd-Chiari).
  • Classification and management recommendations for idiopathic noncirrhotic portal hypertension and the portosinusoidal vascular disorders.
  • Surveillance and evaluation recommendations for hepatic and splenic artery aneurysms.
  • A review of the management issues in vascular liver disorders specific to children and guidance on early intervention in extrahepatic portal vein obstruction in children.

My take: In essence, these two articles are condensed textbooks. The first on Liver Disease, Pregnancy and Reproductive Health. And the second on Bleeding in the Setting of Chronic Liver Disease and Vascular Liver Diseases.