Abstract: There were 18 trials that were eligible for inclusion, five of these were still ongoing.Thirteen completed published trials (2331 participants) were included for analysis in the review. The original review contained nine trials (718 participants). This updated review includes six new trials (1818 participants).Two trials (205 participants) in the original review are now excluded because fewer than 80% of participants had a haematological disorder. The four different types of prophylactic platelet transfusion trial, that were the focus of this review, were included within these thirteen trials. Three trials compared prophylactic platelet transfusions versus therapeutic-only platelet transfusions. There was no statistical difference between the number of participants with clinically significant bleeding in the therapeutic and prophylactic arms but the confidence interval was wide (RR 1.66; 95% CI 0.9 to 3.04).The time taken for a clinically significant bleed to occur was longer in the prophylactic platelet transfusion arm. There was a clear reduction in platelet transfusion usage in the therapeutic arm. There was no statistical difference between the number of participants in the therapeutic and prophylactic arms with platelet refractoriness, the only adverse event reported. Three trials compared different platelet count thresholds to trigger administration of prophylactic platelet transfusions. No statistical difference was seen in the number of participants with clinically significant bleeding (RR 1.35; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.9), however, this type of bleeding occurred on fewer days in the group of patients transfused at a higher platelet count threshold (RR 1.72; 95% CI 1.33 to 2.22).The lack of a difference seen for the number of participants with clinically significant bleeding may be due to the studies, in combination, having insufficient power to demonstrate a difference, or due to masking of the effect by a higher number of protocol violations in the groups of patients with a lower platelet count threshold. Using a lower platelet count threshold led to a significant reduction in the number of platelet transfusions used. There were no statistical differences in the number of adverse events reported between the two groups. Six trials compared different doses of prophylactic platelet transfusions. There was no evidence to suggest that using a lower platelet transfusion dose increased: the number of participants with clinically significant (WHO grade 2 or above) (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.11), or life-threatening (WHO grade 4) bleeding (RR 1.87; 95% CI 0.86 to 4.08). A higher platelet transfusion dose led to a reduction in the number of platelet transfusion episodes, but an increase in total platelet utilisation. Only one adverse event, wheezing after transfusion, had a significantly higher incidence when standard and high dose transfusions were compared but this difference was not seen when low dose and high dose transfusions were compared. It is therefore likely to be a type I error (false positive). One small trial compared prophylactic platelet transfusions versus platelet-poor plasma. The risk of a significant bleed was decreased in the prophylactic platelet transfusion arm (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95) and this was statistically significant. All studies had threats to validity; the majority of these were due to methodology of the studies not being described in adequate detail. Although it was not the main focus of the review, it was interesting to note that in one of the pre-specified sub-group analyses (treatment type) two studies showed that patients receiving an autologous transplant have a lower risk of bleeding than patients receiving intensive chemotherapy or an allogeneic transplant (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.82). These conclusions refer to the four different types of platelet transfusion trial separately. Firstly, there is no evidence that a prophylactic platelet transfusion policy prevents bleeding. Two large trials comparing a therapeutic versus prophylactic platelet transfusion strategy, that have not yet been published, should provide important new data on this comparison. Secondly, there is no evidence, at the moment, to suggest a change from the current practice of using a platelet count of 10 x 109/L. However, the evidence for a platelet count threshold of 10 x 109/L being equivalent to 20 x 109/L is not as definitive as it would first appear and further research is required. Thirdly, platelet dose does not affect the number of patients with significant bleeding, but whether it affects number of days each patient bleeds for is as yet undetermined. There is no evidence that platelet dose affects the incidence of WHO grade 4 bleeding.Prophylactic platelet transfusions were more effective than platelet-poor plasma at preventing bleeding.

Plain-language summary: This review was undertaken to determine the best use of platelet transfusions for the prevention of bleeding in patients who have haematological disorders and are receiving intensive (myelosuppressive) chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation. The review aimed to look at three main topics. One, what is the evidence to indicate if platelet transfusions should be given to prevent bleeding as compared to a strategy aimed at transfusion when bleeding occurs? Second, if platelet transfusions are given to prevent bleeding, when should they be given, for example, at what level of platelet count when measured in a blood sample? Three, if platelet transfusions are given what platelet dose should be used? We are unable to answer the first question, however new data from two large studies should be available when this review is updated in approximately two years time. With regard to the second question, there is no evidence to suggest a change from the current practice of using a platelet count of 10 x 109/L to trigger the use of platelet transfusions to prevent bleeding. However, more research is required to clarify this issue. The final question can be answered. Using a lower platelet dose did not lead to an increased risk of bleeding and fewer platelets were required. The reduction in the number of platelets used should, theoretically, reduce the risk of adverse events although no true differences were seen in the studies. However, adverse events are uncommon and therefore a statistically significant difference may not be seen.