• 中国科学论文统计源期刊
  • 中国科技核心期刊
  • 美国化学文摘(CA)来源期刊
  • 日本科学技术振兴机构数据库(JST)

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL TRANSFUSION AND LABORATORY MEDICINE ›› 2025, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (2): 145-155.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-2587.2025.02.001

    Next Articles

The Clinical Efficacy of 4 ℃ Stored Platelet: a Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial Conducted in Surgical Patients with Hemorrhage

SUN Yang1, NIU Jiameng1, XING Lili1, MA Ting1, DU Gongliang2, LI Xuewen3, WANG Yaqin4, WANG Liqin1, CHEN Ping1, WANG Wenhua1, YANG Yingqun1, SONG Aowei1, XIE Xinxin1, SONG Yaojun1, WANG Miaoni1, CHANG Jingyan1, TIAN Fenfang1, YANG Jiangcun1   

  1. 1Department of Transfusion Medicine;
    2Department of Emergency Surgery;
    3Department of Cardiac Surgery;
    4Department of Obstetrics, Shaanxi People's Hospital, Xi'an, 710068
  • Received:2024-12-07 Online:2025-04-20 Published:2025-04-17

Abstract: Objective To observe the clinical efficacy and adverse reactions of CSP in patients with surgical hemorrhage. Methods A prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted on surgical patients with related bleeding to assess the hemostatic function of CSP compared with RTP. The primary outcomes measured were drainage volume, platelet counts, and Thrombelastography-maximum amplitude. Secondary outcomes included hospital stays, the intensive care unit stays and medical cost. Results A total of 62 patients were completed the final clinical observation. There were 31 cases in each of the CSP group and RTP group. Within 1~12 hours, 13~24 hours, 25~48 hours, and 49~72 hours after platelet transfusion, drainage volume: 8.5 mL/h vs 20.83 mL/h, 0.52 mL/h vs 5.0 mL/h, 3.5 mL/h vs 5.0 mL/h, 0.63 mL/h vs 4.1 mL/h. platelet counts: 58×109/L vs 79×109/L, 54×109/L vs 77×109/L, 63×109/L vs 75×109/L, 66×109/L vs 79×109/L. TEG-MA: 50.1 mm vs 52.0 mm, 50.1 mm vs 54.8 mm, 53.0 mm vs 56.6, 56.0 mm vs 53.2 mm. There were no overall differences between the two groups by Generalized Estimating Equations at different times (PDrainage=0.933, PPLTcounts=0.473, PTEG-MA=0.246). The secondary outcomes (hospital stays, ICU stays, medical cost, discharge outcome) were no differences between the CSP group and RTP group (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in adverse platelet transfusion events between the groups (P>0.05). Conclusion CSP and RTP have equivalent efficacy and safety in the treatment of surgical hemorrhage. This trial provides reliable evidence to support the clinical application of CSP.

Key words: Platelet, Platelet storage, Cold-stored platelets, Room temperature platelets, Hemorrhage

CLC Number: