Demographics and appropriateness of cellular blood component irradiation practices: Ambispective analysis from a tertiary care center.

BACKGROUND: Transfusion-associated graft versus host disease (TA-GVHD) is often underreported. There may also be lapses in TA-GVHD prevention practices due to lack of revision of some of the existing clinical guidelines as well as limited audits on practices of blood component irradiation. This study was undertaken to highlight these shortcomings, and generate data for development of institutional guidelines. METHODS/MATERIALS: Study cohort was selected from patients requiring transfusion support during June 2019 to May 2020. Transfusion history of these patients were followed, both retrospectively and prospectively till July 2021. Transfusion requisitions were categorized as IR (with request for irradiation) or NIR (with no request for irradiation) and justified or unjustified according to published international guidelines. RESULTS: Total 6963 requisitions for cellular blood components were received from 255 patients included in the study cohort. Of these, 3690 (54.9 %) were IR requisitions, while remaining 3029 (45.1 %) requisitions were NIR. Overall, 4242 (63.1 %) requisition were justified for their irradiation status as per published guidelines and 1595 (23.8 %) were found to be Unjustified while justification could not be assessed for remaining 882 (13.1 %) of the requisitions. The highest proportion of Unjustified demands in NIR requisitions was observed in patients with Severe Aplastic anemia (59.4 %). CONCLUSION: Many units were unnecessarily irradiated (7.7 %) while irradiation was missed in 16 % of the requisitions included in analysis which may be attributed to lack of institutional guidelines. We recommend that every centre should adopt a published well-researched guideline including amendments based on review of practices at their center.

Is tattooing associated with increased seroprevalence of transfusion-transmitted infections among blood donors: A single-center study from Southeastern India.

INTRODUCTION: The regulations in India mandate a blanket deferral period of 12 months for donors from the time of acquiring a tattoo. The rationale is that using nonsterile needles, the same dyes for many persons, and other unhygienic practices result in the transmission of blood-borne infections. However, currently, autoclavable tattoo equipment, professional tattoo gun, single-use dye, and needle for tattooing have come up and are known to be devoid of the risks mentioned above. Hence, this study was designed to assess if the seroprevalence of transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs) among tattooed blood donors was higher than in other nontattooed donors. METHODOLOGY: This cross-sectional comparative study was conducted in the Department of Transfusion Medicine at the tertiary care teaching hospital in Pondicherry from September 2017 to May 2019. The study group included blood donors in the age group of 18-60 years with one or more tattoos, and the control group was chosen among blood donors of the same age without a tattoo. The sampling technique was consecutive. The serological prevalence of the two groups was compared for HIV, hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, Syphilis, and Malaria. RESULTS: A total of 368 donors were recruited for the study, 184 donors with tattoos and 184 donors without a tattoo. The detected seroprevalence of TTI among the tattooed and nontattooed groups was 3.8% and 4.3%, respectively. There was no significant association found between tattooing and seroprevalence of TTI. About 60% of the ones who got a tattoo had obtained it from a licensed tattoo parlor. CONCLUSION: We found that the seroprevalence of TTI among tattooed donors was similar to that of nontattooed donors. However, the seroprevalence among donors who had undergone more than one tattooing experience was higher than those who had a single tattooing event.

A comparative study of knowledge, attitude, and practices about organ donation among blood donors and nonblood donors.

INTRODUCTION: Shortage of organs by donation is a national problem which needs a multipronged approach for its strengthening. Educating the people and increasing the awareness of the need for donation would be of the foremost priority. Identifying the target population who are more likely to respond would be very important to reap the maximum results. There is speculation that blood donors would be more amenable and likely to accept the idea and thought of organ donation. This study is being designed to study the same. METHODOLOGY: This was a cross-sectional comparative questionnaire-based study among two groups: blood donors and nonblood donors. Donors were defined as aged above 18 years and have made at least one whole blood/apheresis donation. Nondonors were the ones who were aged above 18 years and have not donated whole blood/apheresis blood products in the past. All the responses were entered in the Microsoft Excel sheets, and statistical analysis was carried out using Statistical Package for Social Sciences. RESULTS: A total of 829 participated in the study. Among the 829 participants, 416 were donors, and 413 were nondonors. There was no difference in knowledge regarding organ donation among the groups except for perceived risks of organ donation among nondonors. Concerning attitudes, they were more favorable among blood donors, and it was statistically significant at a P < 0.05. CONCLUSION: There was no difference with respect to knowledge between donors and nondonors. However, donors had a more favorable attitude toward organ donation. Factors like concerns about misuse of donated organs, lack of clarity on their religion's policy toward organ donation, and potential for harm for the organ donor seem to account for the unfavorable attitude of nondonors toward organ donation.