Restrictive Versus Liberal Fresh Frozen Plasma Transfusion Prior to Low-Risk Invasive Procedures in Hospitalized Patients.

While the restrictive red cell transfusion practice has become a standard of care in the acutely ill, data on the use of fresh frozen plasma (FFP) are limited. FFP transfusion may not only be poorly effective in prevention of bleeding complications but is associated with significant complications. In a retrospective cohort of critically ill non-surgical patients with abnormal international normalized ratio (INR), we have observed significant variability in the practice of FFP transfusion. Rather than a benefit with liberal use, more adverse effects were observed, in particular pulmonary edema and acute lung injury. Our overall goal is to improve the safety of blood product transfusion and prevent pulmonary complications. Here we propose a randomized clinical trial of restrictive (INR 1.6-3) versus liberal (FFP transfusion to keep INR < 1.6) FFP transfusion prior to commonly performed invasive procedures (thoracocentesis, abdominal paracentesis and central venous cannulation). We will use the following outcome measures to compare the differences between the two groups: 1. New onset pulmonary edema; 2. Postprocedural bleeding complications; 3. Number of blood product transfusions; 4. Hospital mortality and 5. Length of intensive care unit and hospital stay. The results of this study will form the basis for future multicenter clinical trials with implications for worldwide transfusion practice.