ABSTRACT
Background: Blood transfusion safety commences with healthy donor recruitment. The threat of transfusion transmitted infections is greatly minimized by serological tools but not entirely eliminated. Recently, nucleic-acid testing for blood donor screening has virtually eliminated this jeopardy. Methods: This prospective study was conducted from February 2015 to February 2016. Samples from seronegative donors were run on multiplex assay (Cobas, S-201 system platform, Roche) in a batch of six [MP-NAT]. In case of reactive pool, tests were run on every individual sample [IDNAT]. Results: Of 16957 donors, 16836 (99.2%) were replacement donors and the remaining 121 (0.7%) were voluntary donors, with a mean age of 29.09 ± 7.04 years. After serologic screening of all 16957 donors, 955 (5.6%) were found to be reactive; 291(1.71%) were reactive for hepatitis-B surface antigen, 361 (2.12%) for antibody to hepatitis C virus (anti-HCV), 14 (0.08%) for antibody to human immunodeficiency virus, 287 (1.69%) for syphilis and 2 (0.01%) for malaria. 14 (0.08%) NAT reactive donors were identified after testing the 16002 seronegative donors, with an overall NAT yield of one reactivity out of 1143 blood donations; 10 donors for HBV-DNA (HBV NAT yield-1:1600) and remaining 4 for HCV-RNA (HCV-NAT yield-1:4000). None were HIV positive. Conclusion: NAT has improved the safety attributes in blood products. Although the positivity rate for NAT testing is low but in view of the high prevalence of transfusion transmitted infections in our country, we recommend the parallel use of both serology and NAT screening of all donated blood.
ABSTRACT
Objectives: Fragmented blood transfusion services along with an unmotivated blood donation culture often leads to blood shortage. Donor retention is crucial to meet the increasing blood demand, and adverse donor reactions have a negative impact on donor return. The aim of this study was to estimate adverse donor reactions and identify any demographic association
Methods: We conducted a prospective study between January 2011 and December 2013. A total of 41,759 healthy donors were enrolled. Professionally trained donor attendants drew blood and all donors were observed during and following donation for possible adverse events for 20 minutes. Blood donors were asked to report if they suffered from any delayed adverse consequences
Results: Out of 41,759 blood donors, 537 [1.3%] experienced adverse reactions. The incidence was one in every 78 donations. The mean age of donors who experienced adverse events was 26.0 +/- 6.8 years, and all were male. Out of 537 donors, 429 [80%] developed vasovagal reaction [VVR], 133 [25%] had nausea, 63 [12%] fainted, 35 [6%] developed hyperventilation, 9 [2%] had delayed syncope, and 9 [2%] developed hematoma. Arterial prick, nerve injury, cardiac arrest, and seizures were not observed. Donors aged less than < 30 years and weighing <70 kg were significantly associated with VVR, hyperventilation, and nausea [p < 0.005]. Undergraduates and Urdu speaking donors also had a significant association with fainting and nausea, respectively [p < 0.05]
Conclusion: The prevalence of adverse events was low at our tertiary center. A VVR was the predominant adverse reaction and was associated with age and weight. Our study highlights the importance of these parameters in the donation process. A well-trained and experienced phlebotomist and pre-evaluation counseling of blood donors could further minimize the adverse reactions