Search

Introduction: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we rapidly implemented a plasma coordination center, within two months, to support transfusion for two outpatient randomized controlled trials. The center design was based on an investigational drug services model and a Food and Drug Administration-compliant database to manage blood product inventory and trial safety., Methods: A core investigational team adapted a cloud-based platform to randomize patient assignments and track inventory distribution of control plasma and high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma of different blood groups from 29 donor collection centers directly to blood banks serving 26 transfusion sites., Results: We performed 1,351 transfusions in 16 months. The transparency of the digital inventory at each site was critical to facilitate qualification, randomization, and overnight shipments of blood group-compatible plasma for transfusions into trial participants. While inventory challenges were heightened with COVID-19 convalescent plasma, the cloud-based system, and the flexible approach of the plasma coordination center staff across the blood bank network enabled decentralized procurement and distribution of investigational products to maintain inventory thresholds and overcome local supply chain restraints at the sites., Conclusion: The rapid creation of a plasma coordination center for outpatient transfusions is infrequent in the academic setting. Distributing more than 3,100 plasma units to blood banks charged with managing investigational inventory across the U.S. in a decentralized manner posed operational and regulatory challenges while providing opportunities for the plasma coordination center to contribute to research of global importance. This program can serve as a template in subsequent public health emergencies., Competing Interests: TJG is a paid consultant and employee of Fenwal, a Fresenius Kabi company (2021–2023); Employee of Werfen (2023-present). AC is on a Scientific Advisory Board of Sabtherapeutics (cow-derived human immunoglobulins COVID-19 treatment and other infectious diseases) and Ortho Diagnostics Speakers Bureau. MAH contracts from Gilead Sciences, Insmed, AN2 Therapeutics, AstraZeneca to the University of Cincinnati, outside the submitted work. EB is a member of the FDA Blood Products Advisory Committee. SS reports research grants; F2G, Cidara, Ansun, Zeteo: personal fees as consultant, advisory board, data safety monitoring board member; Celltrion, Adagio, Immunome, Karius, Pfizer, Scynexis, Adamis, Karyopharm, Intermountain Health: Stock options: Immunome. All other authors report no relevant disclosures., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Competing Interests: We declare no competing interests.

Objective: To assess the safety of a restrictive threshold for the transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs) compared to a liberal threshold in high-risk patients undergoing brain tumor surgery., Patients and Methods: We reviewed patients who were 50 years of age or older with a preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class II to V who underwent open craniotomy for tumor resection and were transfused packed RBCs during or after surgery. We retrospectively assigned patients to a restrictive-threshold (a pretransfusion hemoglobin level <8g/dL) or a liberal-threshold group (a pretransfusion hemoglobin level of 8-10/dL). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital complication rates, length of stay, and discharge disposition., Results: Twenty-five patients were included in the study, of which 17 were assigned to a restrictive-threshold group and 8 patients to a liberal-threshold group. The in-hospital mortality rates were 12% for the restrictive-threshold group (odds ratio [OR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07-12.11) and 13% for the liberal-threshold group. The in-hospital complication rates were 52.9% for the restrictive-threshold group (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.21-6.05) and 50% for the liberal-threshold group. The average number of days in the intensive care unit and hospital were 8.6 and 22.4 days in the restrictive-threshold group and 6 and 15 days in the liberal-threshold group, respectively (P=0.69 and P=0.20). The rates of non-routine discharge were 71% in the restrictive-threshold group (OR 2.40, 95% CI 0.42-13.60) and 50% in the liberal-threshold group., Conclusions: A restrictive transfusion threshold did not significantly influence in-hospital mortality or complication rates, length of stay, or discharge disposition in patients at high operative risk., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

IgG antibodies coating red blood cells (RBCs) can be removed by elution procedures and their specificity determined by antibody identification studies. Although such testing is traditionally performed using the tube agglutination assay, prior studies have shown that the gel microcolumn (GMC) assay may also be used with comparable results. The purpose of this study was to compare an automated solid-phase red cell adherence (SPRCA) system with a GMC assay for the detection of antibodies eluted from RBCs. Acid eluates from 51 peripheral blood (PB) and 7 cord blood (CB) samples were evaluated by both an automated SPRCA instrument and a manual GMC assay. The concordance rate between the two systems for peripheral RBC samples was 88.2 percent (45 of 51), including cases with alloantibodies (n = 8), warm autoantibodies (n = 12), antibodies with no identifiable specificity (n = 2), and negative results (n = 23). There were six discordant cases, of which four had alloantibodies (including anti-Jka, -E, and -e) demonstrable by the SPRCA system only. In the remaining 2 cases, anti-Fya and antibodies with no identifiable specificity were demonstrable by the GMC assay only. All seven CB specimens produced concordant results, showing anti-A (n = 3), -B (n = 1), maternal anti-Jka (n = 2), or a negative result (n = 1). Automated SPRCA technology has a performance that is comparable with that of a manual GMC assay for identifying antibodies eluted from PB and CB RBCs.

Background: Legitimate concerns exist over the safety of donors during multicomponent apheresis collections (MACs), when large volumes of red blood cells (RBCs) and plasma are removed. This study evaluates the predictive value of various donor- and procedure-related variables for moderate to severe donor acute adverse events (AAEs)., Study Design and Methods: Data on all apheresis donation procedures performed at a large university hospital-based donor center over a 2-year period were obtained by a review of adverse event forms and procedure logs (Trima Accel 5.1, Gambro BCT). Various donor- and procedure-related variables were compared between procedures that resulted in moderate to severe AAEs and those that did not., Results: Moderate to severe AAEs occurred in 53 (0.47%) of 11,333 apheresis donation procedures. The majority of events (96.2%) had predominantly features of vasovagal reactions (VVRs). Females were at significantly higher risk (odds ratio [OR] = 2.8, p < 0.0003) compared to males. Donors who experienced AAEs had significantly lower predonation total blood volume (TBV) and hematocrit (Hct) and higher total RBC loss and net fluid loss at the end of the procedures. Total plasma loss alone was not significantly different between the two groups. Total blood loss was significantly higher among donors who experienced AAEs as a percentage of the donor's TBV., Conclusion: Apheresis collections are well tolerated even when multiple components are collected, with a very low overall incidence of moderate to severe AAEs (0.47%). Small, female donors with lower predonation Hct are at higher risk, especially when RBCs are collected.