Search

Background: Volume-reduced platelets can minimize circulatory overload, allergic transfusion reactions, or out-of-group plasma infusion. Our center adopted a volume reduction protocol that includes acidification with acid citrate dextrose solution A (ACD-A) before centrifugation and without any rest period prior to resuspension allowing a better turnaround time for platelet issue., Study Design and Methods: This report compares corrected count increments (CCIs) from full-volume and ACD-A acidified volume-reduced human platelets in a retrospective study at a single hospital and in a mouse model., Results: At a pediatric tertiary care hospital, 530 patients received conventional apheresis platelets during the 20-month study period. Among all patients, the expected 4-h mean CCI was 9.8 (95% CI: 8.7, 10.9) for full-volume platelets, and 8.8 (95% CI: 7.3, 10.6) for ACD-acidified volume-reduced platelets (p = .29). A statistically significant difference (p = .01) was identified in the expected 24-h mean CCI: 6.3 (95% CI: 5.5-7.0) with full-volume platelet, 4.7 (95% CI: 3.6-6.0) with ACD-acidified volume-reduced platelet. Limiting CCI calculations to patients with Hematology/Oncology/Hematopoietic Progenitor Cell Transplant diagnosis (n = 296, 56%) indicated a statistically significant difference in both 4- and 24-h predicted CCIs, showing lower CCIs in ACD-acidified volume-reduced platelet, although these were still similar to the CCIs observed in all patients and considered to be clinically acceptable responses similar to other volume reduction protocols. The recovery of count-adjusted, volume-reduced platelets was significantly lower in mice, suggesting a procedure-related defect., Discussion: ACD-A acidification of platelets before volume reduction decreases turnaround time for platelet issue and provides clinically allowable 4-h and 24-h platelet increments., (© 2024 AABB.)

Purpose: Utilization of technology-assisted workflow (TAWF) systems has gained popularity in the sterile compounding setting. This study was designed to evaluate whether safety and efficiency could be seen when preparing oral controlled substance doses gravimetrically vs volumetrically., Methods: This 2-phase observational study combined manual data collection with automated logs generated by a single TAWF. During phase I, oral controlled substance solutions were prepared volumetrically. In phase II, the same subset of medications was to be prepared gravimetrically via the same TAWF. Findings from phases I and II were compared against each another to determine safety, efficiency, and documentation differences between the volumetric and gravimetric workflows., Results: Thirteen different medications were evaluated during phase I (1,495 preparations) and phase II (1,781 preparations) of this study. Mean compounding time (min:sec) increased in phase II when compared to phase I (1:49 vs 1:28; P < 0.01), with the deviation detection rate also increasing (7.9% vs 4.7%; P < 0.01). Despite a target in phase II of utilizing gravimetric analysis for more than 80% of preparations, only 45.5% (811 preparations) were prepared with this workflow, as adoption challenges and dose size limitations prevented compliance. Doses that were prepared gravimetrically had a mean accuracy rate of 100.6% (the mean achieved dose was 0.6% higher than the mean prescribed dose) and a rejection rate of 0.99% (compared to the phase I rejection rate of 1.07%; P = 0.67)., Conclusion: The gravimetric workflow provided accuracy and additional safety checks when compared to the volumetric alternative, all while providing users with greater access to data. Health systems should consider staffing, product sourcing, patient populations, and medication safety when determining the balance between volumetric and gravimetric workflows., (© American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 2023. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Presymptomatic plasma samples from 1596 donors reporting coronavirus disease 2019 infection or symptoms after blood donation were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA and anti-S and anti-N antibodies. Prior infection and vaccination both protected from developing SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia and from symptomatic infection. RNAemia rates did not differ in the Delta and Omicron variant eras., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. All authors: no reported conflicts., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Respiratory viruses such as influenza do not typically cause viremia; however, SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in the blood of COVID-19 patients with mild and severe symptoms. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in blood raises questions about its role in pathogenesis as well as transfusion safety concerns. Blood donor reports of symptoms or a diagnosis of COVID-19 after donation (post-donation information, PDI) preceded or coincided with increased general population COVID-19 mortality. Plasma samples from 2,250 blood donors who reported possible COVID-19-related PDI were tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Detection of RNAemia peaked at 9%-15% of PDI donors in late 2020 to early 2021 and fell to approximately 4% after implementation of widespread vaccination in the population. RNAemic donors were 1.2- to 1.4-fold more likely to report cough or shortness of breath and 1.8-fold more likely to report change in taste or smell compared with infected donors without detectable RNAemia. No infectious virus was detected in plasma from RNAemic donors; inoculation of permissive cell lines produced less than 0.7-7 plaque-forming units (PFU)/mL and in susceptible mice less than 100 PFU/mL in RNA-positive plasma based on limits of detection in these models. These findings suggest that blood transfusions are highly unlikely to transmit SARS-CoV-2 infection.