Search

Purpose: High ratios of Plasma to Packed Red Blood Cells (FFP:PRBC) improve survival in massively transfused trauma patients. We hypothesized that non-trauma patients also benefit from this transfusion strategy., Methods: Non-trauma patients requiring massive transfusion from November 2003 to September 2011 were reviewed. Logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of mortality. The population was stratified using two FFP:PRBC ratio cut-offs (1:2 and 1:3) and adjusted mortality derived., Results: Over 8 years, 29 % (260/908) of massively transfused surgical patients were non-trauma patients. Mortality decreased with increasing FFP:PRBC ratios (45 % for ratio ≤1:8, 33 % for ratio >1:8 and ≤1:3, 27 % for ratio >1:3 and ≤1:2 and 25 % for ratio >1:2). Increasing FFP:PRBC ratio independently predicted survival (AOR [95 % CI]: 1.91 [1.35-2.71]; p < 0.001). Patients achieving a ratio >1:3 had improved survival (AOR [95 % CI]: 3.24 [1.24-8.47]; p = 0.016)., Conclusion: In non-trauma patients undergoing massive transfusion, increasing FFP:PRBC ratio was associated with improved survival. A ratio >1:3 significantly improved survival probability.

Background: Before 1987, fewer than 50 patients per year at the authors' laboratory had a positive antibody detection test due to antepartum Rhesus immunoprophylaxis. However, after 1987, a marked increase was observed in the number of patients who had received Rh immune globulin (RhIG) during pregnancy as part of routine antepartum Rh immunoprophylaxis. In anticipation that an increased use of RhIG during pregnancy would increase the number of patients in whom anti-D was detected by this laboratory, a protocol was developed to abbreviate the process required to identify anti-D. Although this protocol was adopted primarily to address an anticipated increase in antenatal RhIG usage in women, it was also applied to alloimmunized Rh-negative males., Study Design and Methods: When an Rh-negative patient (male or female) had a reactive screening test for unexpected antibodies and met certain other criteria, the patient's serum was tested with a three-vial set of Rh-negative reagent red cells (Rh-negative screening RBCs), instead of with panels of typed RBCs (panel RBCs), for the identification of anti-D or the detection of non-D antibodies. If the serum under test did not agglutinate or hemolyze Rh-negative screening RBCs, anti-D was identified and no further testing was performed. If the serum agglutinated or hemolyzed Rh-negative screening RBCs, conventional testing with panel RBCs was done to determine the antibody specificity., Results: Rh-negative patients (n = 1174) who had reactive screening tests for unexpected antibodies were tested with Rh-negative screening RBCs; 1079 were found to have anti-D as a single antibody. Seven of these patients subsequently developed a non-D alloantibody, after transfusion or pregnancy, and one patient had anti-C that escaped detection at the time of initial testing with Rh-negative RBCs (a false-negative result). Ninety-two patients had anti-D in combination with a non-D antibody, and three patients had a non-D antibody but not anti-D. Use of the anti-D identification protocol actually reduced the laboratory workload by 176 College of American Pathologists workload units per month, in spite of a marked increase in the number of patients in whom anti-D was detected. No hemolytic transfusion reaction was attributed to the abbreviation of anti-D identification., Conclusion: The identification of anti-D may be abbreviated without jeopardizing patient safety. Such a protocol can reduce laboratory workload and might be particularly appealing to health care facilities that perform antibody detection testing on large numbers of Rh-negative pregnant women, especially if antepartum RhIG is administered routinely.

Approximately 3 percent of the blood samples tested at the authors' laboratory have contained unexpected red cell (RBC) antibodies, of which about one-third have been anti-Le(a) or anti-Le(b). Although these antibodies are usually clinically insignificant, considerable workload was expended in their identification. In hopes of reducing this workload, an alternative approach for identifying these antibodies was implemented. If a patient had no history of unexpected antibodies, with the exception of Lewis system antibodies, and if the results of serum antibody detection testing were typical for the presence of anti-Le(a) and/or anti-Le(b), the serum was treated with commercially standardized soluble human Le(a) and Le(b) blood group substances, and the Lewis phenotype of the patient's red cells was determined. If the treated serum demonstrated specific antibody neutralization and the red cell phenotype was Le(a-b-), the results were interpreted as positive for anti-Le(a) or anti-Le(b), and no further antibody identification workup was performed. If the patient was Le(a+b-) or Le(a-b+), or if the treated serum failed to demonstrate specific antibody neutralization, the serum was tested against panels of reagent RBCs that were licensed for the identification of unexpected antibodies. During the study period (8-1-89 to 6-16-90), 498 of 46,965 patients' samples met the criteria for testing for specific antibody neutralization. Of these 498 blood samples, 452 showed specific neutralization of antibody activity by Lewis substance and were Le(a-b-). Only 1 of these samples was discovered to contain an additional non-Lewis antibody (anti-Bg).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Pretransfusion compatibility testing, if performed properly, helps to maximize the effectiveness of transfusion therapy and to minimize the risk of hemolytic transfusion reactions. Each laboratory should select the procedures and protocols that are best suited to meet their patient care and institutional needs. Quality assessment monitoring of the elements of compatibility testing helps to ensure a high level of safety for patients receiving transfusion therapy.

Severe autoimmune hemolytic anemia due to anti-Ge is described. The patient's red cells had a positive direct antiglobulin test, and they typed as Ge+ using saline reactive reagents. Anti-Ge was eluted from her RBCs, and her serum had an IgG and IgM anti-Ge2,3.

Five percent dextrose in water (D5W) and lactated Ringer's (RL) are two intravenous solutions that are incompatible with citrate phosphate dextrose (CPD) anticoagulated RBCs. Hemolysis, agglutination, and clotting can occur when RBCs are mixed with, infused together with, or transfused in the same line following administration of these fluids. Although minimal plasma remains in units of RBCs containing adenine-saline-dextrose solution (ADSOL; Fenwal Laboratories, Deerfield, IL), clots are seen immediately after contact is made with RL. Clumping and hemolysis are seen when ADSOL-stored RBCs or saline-washed RBCs are mixed with D5W. This study reinforces the unsafe practice of mixing RBCs with certain intravenous solutions.

During a phase I evaluation of diglycoaldehyde (INOX), an intravenous chemotherapeutic agent used to treat children with malignancies, all of eight patients tested developed a positive direct antiglobulin test (DAT) in vivo. The DAT became positive within one to seven days after the first administration of the drug and remained positive for up to 12 days following the last dose. The indirect antiglobulin tests were negative. None of the patients showed clinical or laboratory evidence of hemolysis at the time the DAT became positive or during follow-up. Eluates made from the red cells of two of the eight patients were both negative by indirect antihuman globulin testing. In vitro studies with INOX and glutaraldehyde, both dialdehyde compounds, showed nonimmunologic adsorption of protein onto red cells, probably by the condensation of aldehyde groups of these compounds to form Schiff's bases with amino acids of serum proteins and red cell membrane proteins. This reaction provides an explanation for the globulin detected on the red cells of patients treated with INOX.

Background: Monitoring blood transfusion for overutilization is standard practice at most institutions.Study Design and Methods: This study monitored for underutilization of blood transfusion over a 14-month period, by evaluating patients who had Hb levels that were reported to be <5 g per dL or platelet counts <10 x 10(9) per L and who did not receive an RBC or platelet transfusion within 24 hours of the reported results.Results: During the study period, 24,004 units of RBCs and 3,967 units of apheresis platelets were transfused. There were 148 patients who had a Hb level that was reported to be <5 g per dL or a platelet count reported to be <10 x 10(9) per L and who did not receive a transfusion during the 24 hours after the reporting of these results. In 5 cases, the patients died before the reporting of the low Hb or platelet counts, which precluded the low Hb or low platelet count reports from triggering transfusion therapy. In 8 cases, an underutilization review investigation could not be done, because of the unavailability of patient charts. Of the remaining 135 cases, investigation revealed justifiable reasons for withholding transfusion in 133. In 2 cases, the withholding of transfusion was deemed by peer review to be inappropriate, as the patients should have received a transfusion. Overall, there was one documented underutilization of RBC transfusion therapy during a period when 24,004 units were transfused and one underutilization of platelet transfusion therapy during a period when 3,967 units of apheresis platelets were transfused.Conclusion: Monitoring for underutilization of transfusion therapy fulfills the requirements of the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations: While the underutilization of transfusion therapy did not appear to be a significant problem at this medical center, determining the reasons for withholding transfusions shed light on important patient care-related issues, including preexisting causes of falsely low platelet counts and Hb levels, delays in investigating critical laboratory values, and the need for policies for the treatment of patients who refuse transfusion for personal or religious reasons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]