Management of young blood donors.

The emphasis on high-school blood drives and acceptance of 16-year-old blood donors led to more research on physiologic and psychological ways to decrease vasovagal reaction rates in young blood donors and to increase donor retention. Research on how to accomplish this has been advantageous for the blood collection industry and blood donors. This review discussed the current situation and what can be done psychologically, physiologically, and via process improvements to decrease vasovagal reaction rates and increase donor retention. The donation process can be significantly improved. Future interventions may include more dietary salt, a shorter muscle tension program to make it more feasible, recommendations for post-donation muscle tension / squatting / laying down for lightheadedness, more donor education by the staff at the collection site, more staff attention to donors with fear or higher risk for a vasovagal reaction (e.g. estimated blood volume near 3.5 l, first-time donor), and a more focused donation process to ensure a pleasant and safer procedure.

The American Red Cross donor hemovigilance program: complications of blood donation reported in 2006.

BACKGROUND: The American Red Cross (ARC) initiated a comprehensive donor hemovigilance program in 2003. We provide an overview of reported complications after whole blood (WB), apheresis platelet (PLT), or automated red cell (R2) donation and analyze factors contributing to the variability in reported complication rates in our national program. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Complications recorded at the collection site or reported after allogeneic WB, apheresis PLT, and R2 donation procedures in 36 regional blood centers in 2006 were analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Complications after 6,014,472 WB, 449,594 PLT, and 228,183 R2 procedures totaled 209,815, 25,966, and 12,282 (348.9, 577.5, and 538.3 per 10,000 donations), respectively, the vast majority of which were minor presyncopal reactions and small hematomas. Regional center, donor age, sex, and donation status were independently associated with complication rates after WB, PLT, and R2 donation. Seasonal variability in complications rates after WB and R2 donation correlated with the proportion of donors under 20 years old. Excluding large hematomas, the overall rate of major complications was 7.4, 5.2, and 3.3 per 10,000 collections for WB, PLT, and R2 procedures, respectively. Outside medical care was recorded at similar rates for both WB and automated collections (3.2 vs. 2.9 per 10,000 donations, respectively). CONCLUSION: The ARC data describe the current risks of blood donation in a model multicenter hemovigilance system using standardized definitions and reporting protocols. Reported reaction rates varied by regional center independently of donor demographics, limiting direct comparison of different regional blood centers.

Whole-blood donation: blood donor suitability and adverse events.

Approximately 3% to 3.5% of the US population donates whole blood each year. Physicians might be approached by a blood donor because of a donor suitability issue, a positive postdonation test, or a donation-related complication. Approximately 83% of blood donors successfully donate; but 13% are rejected because of a donor suitability issue; 1% have a positive test, which is often nonspecific or false-positive; and 2% to 4% of the phlebotomies are not successful. The most common adverse physical events based on donor interviews are bruise (23%), sore arm (10%), fatigue (8%), and vasovagal reaction (7%), while uncommon events include nerve irritation (0.9%), syncope (0.1-0.3%), and arterial puncture (0.01%). One in 3400 donors (0.033%) report seeking outside medical care. Serious injuries occur but are very rare. More often, blood donors do well and feel satisfied with the blood donation experience.

Increased all-cause and cancer mortality in HTLV-II infection.

BACKGROUND: Human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV)-I and HTLV-II cause chronic human retroviral infections, but few studies have examined the impact of either virus on survival among otherwise healthy individuals. The authors analyzed all-cause and cancer mortality in a prospective cohort of 155 HTLV-I, 387 HTLV-II, and 799 seronegative subjects. METHODS: Vital status was ascertained using death certificates, the US Social Security Death Index or family report, and causes of death were grouped into 9 categories. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 15.9 years, there were 105 deaths: 22 HTLV-I, 41 HTLV-II, and 42 HTLV-seronegative. Cancer was the predominant cause of death, resulting in 8 HTLV-I, 17 HTLV-II, and 15 HTLV-seronegative deaths. After adjustment for confounding, HTLV-I status was not significantly associated with increased all-cause mortality, though there was a positive trend (HR: 1.6, 95% CI: 0.8 to 3.1). HTLV-II status was strongly associated with increased all-cause (HR: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.4 to 4.4) and cancer mortality (HR: 3.8, 95% CI: 1.6 to 9.2). CONCLUSIONS: The observed associations of HTLV-II with all-cause and cancer mortality could reflect biological effects of HTLV-II infection, residual confounding by socioeconomic status or other factors, or differential access to health care and cancer screening.

The effect of whole-blood donor adverse events on blood donor return rates.

BACKGROUND: Some blood donation-related adverse events (AEs) can negatively impact the blood donor return rate (BDRR) and decrease donor retention. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: One-thousand randomly selected whole-blood donors were interviewed 3 weeks after a 525-mL index whole-blood donation for seven AEs. The number of return visits and duration of follow-up were recorded for each of the 1000 donors. A negative binomial regression analysis was used to determine the contribution of the four most common AEs to the BDRR, and interactions between these AEs were also evaluated. RESULTS: The four most common AEs were bruise alone (15.1%), sore arm "alone" (7.0%), fatigue "alone" (5.1%), and donor reaction "alone" (4.2%), where "alone" is defined to also include donors who had a bruise but no other AE. The estimated BDRR for donations without AEs was 1.32 visits per year. The estimated BDRRs for the four most common AEs were: bruise alone, 1.32 visits per year; sore arm alone, 1.30 visits per year (2% reduction in BDRR); fatigue alone, 1.06 visits per year (20% reduction in BDRR); and donor reaction alone, 0.87 visits per year (34% reduction in BDRR). The BDRR for donor reaction, fatigue, and sore arm together was 0.20 visits per year (85% reduction in BDRR). CONCLUSION: Donor reaction had the most negative impact on the BDRR. There appears to be a synergistic effect between donor reaction, fatigue, and sore arm. Theoretically, amelioration of some AEs has the potential to improve BDRRs.

Blood donor complications after whole-blood donation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review focuses on the common and uncommon adverse events that occur during or after whole-blood donation. The incidence of seeking outside medical care for an adverse event is at least 1 in 3400 blood donations. Physicians may encounter blood donors with adverse events and should be familiar with their prognosis and treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: There are 15 million whole-blood donations per year in the United States, and one third of the donors develop one or more adverse events. A recent study defined the common complications based on a postdonation interview as bruise (23%), sore arm (10%), fatigue (80/%), and vasovagal reaction (7%). A 2003 American Red Cross national donor complication database from 7,000,000 whole-blood donations classified reported donor complications and the incidence of outside medical care. Descriptive studies have been published on vasovagal syncopal reactions, antecubital nerve injuries (irritations), and arterial punctures, and the medical outcomes for these entities have been more precisely defined. The effect of blood donor adverse events on donor retention rates is a new area that is just beginning to be studied. SUMMARY: The incidence of complications and types of complications is more precisely defined today. Medical outcomes are better defined for vasovagal reactions, nerve injuries (irritations), and arterial puncture. These data should help physicians who encounter these entities.

Vasovagal reaction rates and body weight: findings in high- and low-risk populations.

BACKGROUND: The effect of weight on vasovagal reaction rates has not been evaluated in high- and low-risk populations or in first-time versus repeat blood donors. In addition, vasovagal reaction rates and weight have not been evaluated based on solicited information. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 1073 Caucasian high school students from randomly selected whole-blood drives in 2001 and 949 randomly selected Caucasian donors from the general donor population in 2001 and 2002 were subdivided into weight groups and evaluated for vasovagal reaction rates. RESULTS: The high school population had a much higher vasovagal reaction rate than the general donor population (8.0 vs. 2.6%). The vasovagal reaction rate was inversely proportional to body weight in first-time blood donors in both populations, but the trend was not as well defined in repeat blood donors. Solicitation of information from the general donor population increased the vasovagal reaction detection rate by 2.5 times (from 2.6% to 6.5%), and it is suggested that the vasovagal reaction rate might be as high as 27 percent in first-time general donors who weighed between 110 and 139 pounds. CONCLUSION: Body weight is a very important determinant of vasovagal reaction rates in first-time donors, but previous successful blood donation appears to mitigate the effect of body weight on vasovagal reaction rates. Solicitation of information from blood donors increases the number of vasovagal reactions detected and enhances the data.

Adverse effects in blood donors after whole-blood donation: a study of 1000 blood donors interviewed 3 weeks after whole-blood donation.

BACKGROUND: There are no reports in the transfusion medicine literature that describe adverse reactions and donor arm injuries after whole-blood donation based on solicited information. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The present study solicited adverse reaction and donor arm injury information from 1000 randomly selected whole-blood donors approximately 3 weeks after the whole-blood donation. Two 16-gauge phlebotomy needles in use were also compared. RESULTS: Thirty-six percent of the donors had one or more adverse effects (AEs). The most common systemic AEs were fatigue (7.8%), vasovagal symptoms (5.3%), and nausea and vomiting (1.1%). The most common arm findings were bruise (22.7%), arm soreness (10.0%), and hematoma (1.7%). Men were half as likely as women to have an AE (23% AE vs. 48% AE, p < 0.0001). Repeat blood donors had fewer AEs than first-time blood donors (36% AE vs. 47% AE, p < 0.007), and African-American donors had numbers of AEs similar to those of Caucasian donors (31% AE vs. 38% AE, p = 0.30). The two phlebotomy needles did not differ in causing blood donor AEs. CONCLUSION: AEs after donation and complaints may be more common than previously thought. The postdonation interview is a good tool for defining the blood donor's experience. It can also be used to evaluate and potentially improve blood donor safety and comfort.