Can better information increase hemapheresis?

We created a questionnaire in order to understand why donors generally did not want to give plasma and platelets the first time they were asked to donate. The hypothesis is that donors have a negative perception of hemapheresis due to insufficient information about procedures and emocomponent use. We collected 745 Questionnaires in the Marche and Abruzzo regions from February to April 2001. Results show that donors have an unfavourable perception of the hemapheresis compared to blood donation. We found differences in donors' perception between all kinds of donations regarding these aspects: (1) information about donation procedures, (2) awareness of emocomponent use, (3) importance of different kinds of donation, (4) availability of donors in relation to length of donations, (5) level of safety (regarding the possibility to contracting some viruses and also regarding possible immediate side-effects), (6) level of importance for saving lives. A key factor in determining an unfavourable perception of hemapheresis is the information level; in fact we found by linear regression that the information level affects the perception of safety and donation importance. These differences of perception show that there are prejudices about hemapheresis which are caused by a lack of Information. So we are convinced, also by statistical analysis, that better information is the most effective way to increase hemapheresis.

Long-term hematologic reconstitution after autologous peripheral blood progenitor cell transplantation: a comparison between controlled-rate freezing and uncontrolled-rate freezing at 80 degrees C.

BACKGROUND: The most widely used system for peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) cryopreservation is controlled-rate freezing (CRF). Uncontrolled-rate freezing (URF) at -80 degrees C has also been used, but its clinical impact has not been studied sufficiently yet. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Two groups of patients were compared: Group A consisted of 69 patients autotransplanted with PBPCs cryopreserved with CRF; Group B consisted of 192 patients autotransplanted with PBPCs cryopreserved with URF at -80 degrees C. The same cryoprotectant solution and storage system were used. RESULTS: A significant delay of hematologic reconstitution (HR) in the URF group was observed for neutrophils greater than 0.5 x 10(9) per L and for platelets greater than 20 x 10(9) per L and greater than 50 x 10(9) per L; we did not observe any differences in the clinical course. The long-term HR was comparable in the two groups, all patients showed stable engraftment, and no late graft failures were observed. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms that URF is safe and allows sustained long-term engraftment without increasing the risks of transplantation, even though the early engraftment after URF is slower.