Plateletpheresis before redo CABG diminishes excessive blood transfusion

Blood conservation remains an important element for patients undergoing cardiac operations with cardiopulmonary bypass. Preoperative platelet-rich plasma (PRP) harvest is an autologous blood conservation method. The efficacy of preoperative PRP harvest and post-cardiopulmonary bypass reinfusion on postoperative bleeding and need for postoperative blood transfusion was evaluated in patients undergoing redo coronary artery bypass grafting in a prospective, randomized manner.

All adult patients admitted for redo coronary artery bypass grafting entered into the study. The PRP harvest aim was 20% or more of the total estimated circulating platelets. Immediately preoperatively three sequestration cycles were performed. The PRP was reinfused after weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass. One hundred seven parameters/patient were recorded. There were 20 patients in the RPR group and 20 controls (without PRP harvest).

Patient characteristics, operative data, and preoperative hematologic parameters did not differ between the groups. In the PRP group, the mean platelet count in the PRP was 864 +/- 139 x 10(3)/microL, and the platelet yield was 27% +/- 5% (range, 20% to 37%). The average total chest tube blood loss was 423 mL (PRP) compared with 1,462 mL (controls; p < 0.001). Fourteen patients in the control group required blood transfusions postoperatively compared with only 1 patient in the PRP group (p < 0.001). Postoperative fluid requirements were also significantly greater in the control group (p < 0.001). Postextubation gas exchange was significantly better in the PRP group compared with controls (p < 0.01). Postoperative ventilation time and intensive care stay were significantly shorter in patients in the PRP group.

A preoperative PRP harvest of 20% or more of the total platelets and reinfusion of the PRP after cardiopulmonary bypass resulted in significantly less postoperative blood loss and decreased fluid and blood transfusion requirements compared with controls. Postextubation gas exchange, ventilation time, and time required in the intensive care unit were also better, and the method was found cost-effective.