Search

BACKGROUND: Cryopreservation extends platelet (PLT) shelf life from 5 to 7 days to 2 to 4 years. However, only 73 patients have been transfused cryopreserved PLTs in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs), making safety data insufficient for regulatory approval. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The Cryopreserved vs. Liquid Platelet (CLIP) study was a double-blind, pilot, multicenter RCT involving high-risk cardiothoracic surgical patients in four Australian hospitals. The objective was to test, as the primary outcome, the feasibility and safety of the protocol. Patients were allocated to study group by permuted block randomization, with patients and clinicians blinded by use of an opaque shroud placed over each study PLT unit. Up to 3 units of cryopreserved or liquid-stored PLTs were administered per patient. No other aspect of patient care was affected. Adverse events were actively sought. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients were randomized, of whom 23 received cryopreserved PLTs and 18 received liquid-stored PLTs. There were no differences in blood loss (median, 715 mL vs. 805 mL at 24 hr; difference between groups 90 mL [95% CI, -343.8 to 163.8 mL], p = 0.41), but the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criterion for significant postoperative hemorrhage in cardiac surgery composite bleeding endpoint occurred in nearly twice as many patients in the liquid-stored group (55.6% vs. 30.4%, p = 0.10). Red blood cell transfusion requirements were a median of 3 units in the cryopreserved group versus 4 units with liquid-stored PLTs (difference between groups, 1 unit [95% CI, -3.1 to 1.1 units]; p = 0.23). Patients in the cryopreserved group were more likely to be transfused fresh-frozen plasma (78.3% vs. 27.8%, p = 0.002) and received more study PLT units (median, 2 units vs. 1 unit; difference between groups, 1 unit [95% CI, -0.03 to 2.0 units]; p = 0.012). There were no between-group differences in potential harms including deep venous thrombosis, myocardial infarction

© 2017 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology. Human–wildlife conflicts are commonly addressed by excluding, relocating, or lethally controlling animals with the goal of preserving public health and safety, protecting property, or conserving other valued wildlife. However, declining wildlife populations, a lack of efficacy of control methods in achieving desired outcomes, and changes in how people value animals have triggered widespread acknowledgment of the need for ethical and evidence-based approaches to managing such conflicts. We explored international perspectives on and experiences with human–wildlife conflicts to develop principles for ethical wildlife control. A diverse panel of 20 experts convened at a 2-day workshop and developed the principles through a facilitated engagement process and discussion. They determined that efforts to control wildlife should begin wherever possible by altering the human practices that cause human–wildlife conflict and by developing a culture of coexistence; be justified by evidence that significant harms are being caused to people, property, livelihoods, ecosystems, and/or other animals; have measurable outcome-based objectives that are clear, achievable, monitored, and adaptive; predictably minimize animal welfare harms to the fewest number of animals; be informed by community values as well as scientific, technical, and practical information; be integrated into plans for systematic long-term management; and be based on the specifics of the situation rather than negative labels (pest, overabundant) applied to the target species. We recommend that these principles guide development of international, national, and local standards and control decisions and implementation.