Blood transfusion strategy in cirrhotic patients with active upper GI bleeding

Upper gastro intestinal bleeding (UGIB) in patients with cirrhosis is a major medical problem in the emergency department. It was found to be the common cause for UGIB in our institute seen in nearly 36% of patients. The other common causes for the UGIB were peptic ulcer disease and erosive mucosal disease. It was also an important indication for resuscitation and blood transfusion, nearly 65% of such patients received blood transfusion (1). On a multivariate analysis, using logistic regression, multiple blood transfusions were one of the factors associated with mortality in these patients in our tertiary care institution (1). Hence, it is important to follow a safe and effective blood transfusion strategy in patients with UGIB, for a better outcome.

In the iMDT corner of AME Medical Journal, a case report of UGIB in a cirrhotic patient due to hepatitis B virus was discussed recently (2). In the management of this patient, a liberal blood transfusion strategy was followed; blood transfusion was given, even though the initial hemoglobin was 12.8 g/dL to avert a possible shock state. It could be seen that a liberal transfusion policy of transfusing packed red blood cells (PRBC) and fresh frozen plasma (FFP) led to repeated episodes of bleeding in that patient and bleeding came under control only when Hb% was 7.7 g/dL. In the discussion part of the article several important questions like restrictive vs. liberal transfusion strategy, need of transfusion in the presence of deranged clotting mechanism in cirrhotics, hemoconcentration in the setting of UGIB and the number of units of transfusion necessary were raised and finally, it was concluded that restricting blood transfusion is the way forward. Keeping this in mind, we would like to re-emphasize some of these facts below.

There is a significant improvement in the understanding of coagulopathy in cirrhotic patients recently (3,4). We now know that both pro-coagulant and anti-coagulant factors are decreased in these patients and hemostatic balance is maintained at a low level. They are susceptible to both hemorrhage and thrombosis (5). Thrombin generation time gets impaired in these patients if the platelet count falls below 50×10⁹/L (6).

Use of prothrombin time test is not found to be useful for prophylactic transfusion of FFP in these patients (7). Hence, thromboelastography (TEG) guided blood products transfusion may be useful in the future (8). Drugs that produce hemostasis have a limited role either in the prevention or treatment of bleeding in cirrhotics since the main reason for bleeding is due to portal hypertension and altered hemodynamics (9).

In the randomized study of Villanueva et al. transfusion of RBCs with a liberal strategy (Hb% <9 g/dL) was associated with a worse outcome in patients with acute UGIB and the same was true also in the subgroup of cirrhotic patients with Child-Pugh class A and B. This could be probably due to further increase in portal pressure and hence further bleeding (10). A restrictive transfusion strategy (Hb% <7 g/dL) was associated with a reduced rebleeding, decreased adverse events and an improved survival compared with a liberal strategy. In the non-inferiority randomized controlled trial in our institute, restrictive transfusion did not increase the mortality, morbidity, re-bleeding rates and the need for interventions when compared to liberal transfusion strategy (11). Galal et al. found that, among the Egyptian patients with variceal bleeding, the restrictive strategy of blood transfusion was better with respect to the complication, hospital stay and mortality (12). Chen et al. in their propensity matched retrospective study of a very large group of patients with UGIB found that the group with liberal blood transfusion had a higher mortality and rebleeding (13). Jairath et al. in a multicenter feasibility (TRIGGER) trial found that restrictive strategy of blood transfusion in patients with UGIB can be used in many centers with the same result as in a single center study (14). The UK guidelines (15) and Baveno VI (16) consensus also recommend that RBC transfusion be done in a restrictive fashion in UGIB, although individual patient factors like cardiovascular disorder, age, hemodynamics and ongoing exsanguination bleeding should be kept in mind (17) when a liberal strategy must be used.

But adherence to these existing guidelines is poor, as has been shown in a recent nationwide study in the UK by Desborough et al. (18). In this study, the threshold of Hb% for blood transfusion was >8 g/dL in 26% of the patients, who received transfusion for UGIB due to cirrhosis. This could be due to the fact that cirrhotic patients with bleeding present to the emergency medical care team who trigger massive transfusion protocol and are seen later by the specialists. The same may be true with the case published in the iMDT corner of AME Medical Journal (2). The liver study group in the UK has issued a decompensated care bundle with a checklist which may improve the acute care of liver patients including the blood transfusion strategies (19). This may be helpful in the emergency setting in the first 24 hours when a specialist gastroenterologist/hepatologist may not be available.

With the above evidence, it is time we stick to the recommended international guidelines in blood transfusion and follow a restrictive strategy of blood transfusion in cirrhotic patients with active UGIB. If necessary further trials may be conducted to guide further or affirm the same.

Acknowledgments

Funding: None.

Footnote

Provenance and Peer Review: This article was commissioned by the editorial office, AME Medical Journal. The article did not undergo external peer review.

Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/amj.2018.12.05). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

References

1. Vishnu Prasad NR, Ali SM, Ganapathy V, et al. Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding in a tertiary care hospital in South India-Have we Improved the outcomes? Trop Gastroenterol 2017;37:168-76.
2. Bai Z, Guo X, Li H, et al. Should red blood cell transfusion be immediately given to a cirrhotic patient with active upper gastrointestinal bleeding? AME Med J 2018;3:83. [Crossref]
3. Tsochatzis EA, Senzolo M, Germani G, et al. Systematic review: portal vein thrombosis in cirrhosis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010;31:366-74. [Crossref] [PubMed]
4. Tsochatzis EA, Bosch J, Burroughs AK. Liver cirrhosis. Lancet 2014;383:1749-61. [Crossref] [PubMed]
5. Søgaard KK, Horváth-Puhó E, Grønbaek H, et al. Risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with liver disease: a nationwide population-based case-control study. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:96-101. [Crossref] [PubMed]
6. Tripodi A, Primignani M, Chantarangkul V, et al. Thrombin generation in patients with cirrhosis: the role of platelets. Hepatology 2006;44:440-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
7. Yang L1, Stanworth S, Hopewell S, et al. Is fresh-frozen plasma clinically effective? An update of a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Transfusion 2012;52:1673-86; quiz 1673.
8. De Pietri L, Bianchini M, Montalti R, et al. Thrombelastography-guided blood product use before invasive procedures in cirrhosis with severe coagulopathy: A randomized, controlled trial. Hepatology 2016;63:566-73. [Crossref] [PubMed]
9. Mannucci PM, Tripodi A. Liver disease, coagulopathies and transfusion therapy. Blood Transfusion 2013;11:32-6. [PubMed]
10. Villanueva C, Colomo A, Bosch A, et al. Transfusion strategies for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. N Engl J Med 2013;368:11-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
11. Kate V, Tej Kola GS, Mohsina S, et al. Mo1187-Restrictive vs. Liberal Transfusions Strategy in Patients with Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding—a Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology 2018;154:S700-1. [Crossref]
12. Galal SM, Elhawari SA, Dawod HM, et al. Restrictive versus Liberal Blood Transfusion Strategies in Egyptian Patients with Esophageal Variceal Bleeding. Open J Gastroenterol 2016;6:151-7. [Crossref]
13. Chen YC, Hsiao CT, Lin LC, et al. The association between red blood cell transfusion and outcomes in patients with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2018;9:138. [Crossref] [PubMed]
14. Jairath V, Kahan BC, Gray A, et al. Restrictive versus liberal blood transfusion for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (TRIGGER):a pragmatic, open-label, cluster randomised feasibility trial. Lancet 2015;386:137-44. [Crossref] [PubMed]
15. Tripathi D, Stanley AJ, Hayes PC, et al. UK guidelines on the management of variceal haemorrhage in cirrhotic patients. Gut 2015;64:1680-704. [Crossref] [PubMed]
16. de Franchis R, Baveno VI. Faculty. Expanding consensus in portal hypertension: Report of the Baveno VI Consensus Workshop: Stratifying risk and individualizing care for portal hypertension. J Hepatol 2015;63:743-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
17. Fatourou EM, Tsochatzis EA. Transfusion strategies in patients with cirrhosis: less is more. Liver Int 2016;36:503-4. [Crossref] [PubMed]
18. Desborough MJ, Hockley B, Sekhar M, et al. Patterns of blood component use in cirrhosis: a nationwide study. Liver Int 2016;36:522-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
19. McPherson S, Dyson J, Austin A, et al. Response to the NCEPOD report: development of a care bundle for patients admitted with decompensated cirrhosis - the first 24 h. Frontline Gastroenterol 2016;7:16-23. [Crossref] [PubMed]