Incidence of transfusion reactions: a multicenter study utilizing systematic active surveillance and expert adjudication.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence estimates of the serious hazards of transfusion vary widely. We hypothesized that the current reporting infrastructure in the United States fails to capture many transfusion reactions and undertook a multicenter study using active surveillance, data review, and adjudication to test this hypothesis. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective record review was completed for a random sample of 17% of all inpatient transfusion episodes over 6 months at four academic tertiary care hospitals, with an episode defined as all blood products released to a patient in 6 hours. Data were recorded by trained clinical research nurses, and serious reactions were adjudicated by a panel of transfusion medicine experts. RESULTS: Of 4857 transfusion episodes investigated, 1.1% were associated with a serious reaction. Transfusion-associated circulatory overload was the most frequent serious reaction noted, being identified in 1% of transfusion episodes. Despite clinical notes describing a potential transfusion association in 59% of these cases, only 5.1% were reported to the transfusion service. Suspected transfusion-related acute lung injury/possible transfusion-related acute lung injury, anaphylactic, and hypotensive reactions were noted in 0.08, 0.02, and 0.02% of transfusion episodes, respectively. Minor reactions, including febrile nonhemolytic and allergic, were noted in 0.62 and 0.29% of transfusion episodes, respectively, with 30 and 50% reported to the transfusion service. CONCLUSION: Underreporting of cardiopulmonary transfusion reactions is striking among academic, tertiary care hospitals. Complete and accurate reporting is essential to identify, define, establish pathogenesis, and mitigate/treat transfusion reactions. A better understanding of the failure to report may improve the accuracy of passive reporting systems.

Visual presentations of efficacy data in direct-to-consumer prescription drug print and television advertisements: A randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether visual aids help people recall quantitative efficacy information in direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertisements, and if so, which types of visual aids are most helpful. METHODS: Individuals diagnosed with high cholesterol (n=2504) were randomized to view a fictional DTC print or television advertisement with no visual aid or one of four visual aids (pie chart, bar chart, table, or pictograph) depicting drug efficacy. We measured drug efficacy and risk recall, drug perceptions and attitudes, and behavioral intentions. RESULTS: For print advertisements, a bar chart or table, compared with no visual aid, elicited more accurate drug efficacy recall. The bar chart was better at this than the pictograph and the table was better than the pie chart. For television advertisements, any visual aid, compared with no visual aid, elicited more accurate drug efficacy recall. The bar chart was better at this than the pictograph or the table. CONCLUSION: Visual aids depicting quantitative efficacy information in DTC print and television advertisements increased drug efficacy recall, which may help people make informed decisions about prescription drugs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Adding visual aids to DTC advertising may increase the public's knowledge of how well prescription drugs work.

A multicenter study of plasma use in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Detailed information regarding plasma use in the United States is needed to identify opportunities for practice improvement and design of clinical trials of plasma therapy. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Ten US hospitals collected detailed medical information from the electronic health records for 1 year (2010-2011) for all adult patients transfused with plasma. RESULTS: A total of 72,167 units of plasma were transfused in 19,596 doses to 9269 patients. The median dose of plasma was 2 units (interquartile range, 2-4; range 1-72); 15% of doses were 1 unit, and 45% were 2 units. When adjusted by patient body weight (kg), the median dose was 7.3 mL/kg (interquartile range, 5.5-12.0). The median pretransfusion international normalized ratio (INR) was 1.9 (25%-75% interquartile range, 1.6-2.6). A total of 22.5% of plasma transfusions were given to patients with an INR of less than 1.6 and 48.5% for an INR of 2.0 or more. The median posttransfusion INR was 1.6 (interquartile range, 1.4-2.0). Only 42% of plasma transfusions resulted in a posttransfusion INR of less than 1.6. Correction of INR increased as the plasma dose increased from 1 to 4 units (p < 0.001). There was no difference in the INR response to different types of plasma. The most common issue locations were general ward (38%) and intensive care unit (ICU; 42%). CONCLUSION: This large database describing plasma utilization in the United States provides evidence for both inadequate dosing and unnecessary transfusion. Measures to improve plasma transfusion practice and clinical trials should be directed at patients on medical and surgical wards and in the ICU where plasma is most commonly used.