Search

Background: Washing red blood cell (RBC) units mitigates severe allergic transfusion reactions. However, washing reduces the time to expiration and the effective dose. Automated washing is time‐ and labor‐intensive. A shortage of cell processor tubing sets prompted review of medical necessity for washed RBC for patients previously thought to require washing. Study Design and Methods: A single‐center, retrospective study investigated discontinuing wash RBC protocols in chronically transfused adults. In select patients with prior requirements for washing, due to a history of allergic transfusion reactions, trials of unwashed transfusions were performed. Patient demographic, clinical, laboratory, and transfusion data were compiled. The per‐unit washing cost was the sum of the tubing set, saline, and technical labor costs. Results: Fifteen patients (median age 34 years interquartile range [IQR] 23–53 years, 46.7% female) were evaluated. These patients had been transfused with a median of 531 washed RBC units (IQR 244–1066) per patient over 12 years (IQR 5–18 years), most commonly for recurrent, non‐severe allergic reactions. There were no transfusion reactions with unwashed RBCs aside from one patient with one episode of pruritus and another with recurrent pruritus, which was typical even with washed RBC. We decreased the mean number of washed RBC units per month by 72.9% (104 ± 10 vs. 28.2 ± 25.2; p <.0001) and saved US $100.25 per RBC unit. Conclusion: Washing of RBCs may be safely reconsidered in chronically transfused patients without a history of anaphylaxis. Washing should be implemented judiciously due to potential lack of necessity and logistical/operational challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion remains a major treatment for sickle cell disease (SCD). Patients with SCD have a high prevalence of renal impairment and cardiorespiratory disease, conferring risk of transfusion‐associated circulatory overload (TACO). Study Design and Methods: We describe an approach, titled euvolemic automated transfusion (EAT), to transfuse SCD patients with severe anemia who are at risk of TACO. In EAT, plasmapheresis is performed using donor RBCs, rather than albumin or plasma, as replacement fluid. Euvolemia is maintained. A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients with SCD who underwent EAT at our institution over a 10‐year period, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EAT. Results: Eleven SCD patients underwent 109 EAT procedures (1–59 procedures per patient). The median age was 42 years (IQR = [30–49]) and 82% (n = 9) were female. Most (82%; n = 9) patients had severe chronic kidney disease and 55% (n = 6) had heart failure. One (9%) patient had a history of life‐threatening TACO. Mean pre‐ and post‐procedure Hct values were 19.8% (SD ± 1.6%) and 29.1% (SD ± 1.4%), respectively. The average Hct increment was 3.2% per RBC unit. Only two EAT‐related complications were recorded during the 109 procedures: central line‐associated infection and citrate toxicity (muscle cramping). EAT used an average of two RBC units less than that projected for standard automated RBC exchange. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that EAT is safe and effective to treat patients with SCD and severe anemia, who are at risk for TACO. EAT requires fewer RBC units compared to automated RBC exchange. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]