Search

Transfusion of whole blood largely was replaced by component therapy in the 1970s and 1980s. The recent military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan returned whole blood to military trauma care. Eventually, whole blood use was incorporated into some civilian trauma care. It has been utilized in several other civilian populations as well. Trials to compare whole blood to component therapy are ongoing.

Background Several approaches are used by blood centers when providing minor (non-ABO/D) antigen-negative RBCs to hospitals. Details vary but include providing results on the unit labeling intended for clinical use without retyping or providing results on packing documents or via computer query requiring confirmation. Recent regulatory changes allow labeling with historical minor antigen results, defined as previously performed by the donor center on two different donations with results linked to the donor and confirmed concordant. Here we investigate causes of discrepancies and identify critical process steps. Study design and methods Nine years (2009-2017) of data were reviewed for number, antigen system, and root cause of discrepancies flagged by the computer when retyping donors prior to labeling (internal discrepancies) or reported by the hospital when retested (external discrepancies). Licensed automated (CcEeK) and tube methods were used. Results Among 300,000 samples phenotyped for CcEe, K, Fya/b , Jka/b , Ss (>3 million antigens), ∼1,389,960 were repeated on 2nd donation with 397 (1/3501) discordant; 205 Fy, 118 Rh, and 74 others. Of ∼682,691 antigen-negative phenotypes provided on unit labeling, ∼37.5% (256,118) were retyped by hospitals with 29 discrepancies (1/8832), primarily Rh variants. Conclusion When repeating minor antigen types by serology, discrepancies are primarily associated with weak Fyb , among Caucasian donors, and weak/partial Rh antigens in donors of African ancestry. DNA-based testing avoids these. To label with historical results, accuracy is increased by automated testing with direct computer interface. Testing on two donations with results confirmed to be concordant is not inferior to testing on the current donation.

Safety of the blood supply has been a critical aspect of the transfusion medicine field since its inception, including infections that can be passed to a blood product recipient. Reactive efforts to identify potentially infected blood products are used throughout the blood donation process and afterward. Before donation, potential donors are provided educational materials about infection risks, examined and then screened through a series of questions that help temporarily, permanently, or indefinitely defer donors who could harbor acute and/or chronic infections. During donation, aseptic technique and diversion pouches reduce the potential to introduce bacteria into the blood product. Before transfusion, the blood products are tested for several infectious diseases by serology, nucleic acid testing, or a combination. During transfusion, the patient is monitored closely, and suspected transfusion reactions should be reported and investigated. The FDA regularly publishes guidance documents to incorporate knowledge gained regarding transfusion-transmitted infections, so that information can be shared and practices updated so that transfusion-related patient care can be optimized over time. Pathogen reduction processes are being developed and deployed that provide a proactive approach to both recognized and emerging pathogens.

We review recent articles pertaining to the use of tranexamic acid (TXA) in populations at risk for massive transfusion. Although there are no recent studies that specifically examine the use of TXA in massive transfusion protocols (MTPs), there are a few studies with subgroups of massive transfusion patients.In recent years, many publications have discussed outcomes and safety associated with the addition of TXA to treatment plans for bleeding pediatric, trauma, and postpartum hemorrhage patients. In general, TXA appears to decrease mortality and transfusion requirements.TXA was shown to decrease mortality in several bleeding populations. It is now a common addition to MTPs. There is conflicting evidence regarding the potential of TXA as a risk factor for thrombotic events. Ongoing studies should provide additional evidence regarding the thrombotic risk of TXA in massive transfusion.

Tumor markers are molecules derived from patient body fluids or tissues that are measured and can provide information useful for the management of cancer patients. Applications include detection of cancer, monitoring of disease progression, and evaluation of the effectiveness of therapeutic regimens, among others. Henry Bence-Jones discovered the first tumor marker in 1846—a protein seen in acidified urine of patients with multiple myeloma (1). Since that time, many more tumor markers have been described for a variety of other cancers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved several of these markers (Table 1), and many more are being investigated and evaluated for clinical use. The goal of this chapter is to review how tumor marker assays are evaluated, describe the applications of tumor markers, provide details on the detection of tumor markers using immunoassays, and then list examples of clinically useful tumor markers that are used in the clinical laboratory today. Although the last few years have witnessed a plethora of developments in molecular testing of tumor markers, these will not be discussed here, as we will restrict our discussion to immunoassay-based detection methods.