[Analysis of Causes and Condition of Blood Donation Reaction Under Collective Emergency Blood Donation].

OBJECTIVE: To explore the causes and specific conditions of blood donation reaction under the collective emergency unpaid blood donation, and to provide theoretical basis and decision-making reference for drafting the collective emergency unpaid blood donation and blood donation safety. METHODS: Through a combination of prospective and retrospective models, and statistical methods were used to analyze the causes and conditions of the blood donation response of 10401 people participating in collective emergency unpaid blood donation during 2016.1-2018.8. RESULTS: A total of 10401 person-times donated blood in a sitting manner, and a total of 293 blood donation reactions occurred. By improving the blood donation services year by year, the moderate blood donation reaction during the year 2017 and 2018 was significantly lower than that in 2016 (P＜0.05). In the actual blood donation group of≤100, 200, 300 and 400 ml, the incidence of blood donation reaction was statistically significant (P＜0.05); the incidence of blood donation reaction in the blood donors for 1,2,3 and ＞3 drnations was also statistically significant (P＜0.05); the blood donation reactions rate of B antigen containers was significantly different from the donors without B antigen (P＜0.05); the incidence of blood donation reaction with related to the weight of the donor. CONCLUSION: The blood donation reaction of collective emergency unpaid blood donation closely relates with mental factors, blood donation service, blood donation frequency and body weight of the blood donor. The first blood donation is more likely to produce blood donation reaction. The blood donation volum≤ 100 ml from blood donors is resulted mostly from blood donation reactions.

Correction to: Evaluation of 22G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine-needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study.

The HTML version of this article was updated to indicate that the copyright is with The Author(s).

Evaluation of 22G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine-needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study.

BACKGROUND: To compare the diagnostic yield and safety of 22G endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions. METHODS: Between April 2014 and September 2015, 36 patients with pancreatic solid lesions were included for endoscopic ultrasound test. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: EUS-FNA (n = 18) and EUS-FNB (n = 18). Each nidus was punctured three times (15 ~ 20 insertions for each puncture) with a 22G needle. The core specimens were analyzed, and the diagnostic yields of FNA and FNB were evaluated. RESULTS: The procedure success rate was 100% with no complications. Cytological and histological examinations found that the diagnostic yield of FNB and FNA were both 83.3%. To get a definitive diagnosis, FNB needed fewer punctures than FNA (1.11 vs. 1.83; P  <  0.05). CONCLUSIONS: 22G EUS-FNB is a safe and effective way to diagnose pancreatic solid lesions. FNB required a lower number of needle passes to achieve a diagnosis compared with FNA.

Application of clips assisted with foreign body forceps in defect closure after endoscopic full-thickness resection.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of metallic clips assisted with foreign body forceps closing the gastric wall defect after endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFR) for gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs). METHODS: Eighteen patients with gastric SMTs originated from the muscularis propria were treated by EFR between September 2012 and June 2014. Twelve patients underwent endoscopic closure of the gastric wall defects after EFR with endoloop and metallic clips (endoloop string suture method, ESSM), and six patients with clips and foreign body forceps (clips assisted with foreign body forceps clip method, CFCM). RESULTS: No significant differences existed between the two groups in terms of demographics, clinical characteristics, and the size of the gastric wall defects. The average time spent in closing the gastric wall defects (14.83 ± 1.94 min for the CFCM group and 22.42 ± 5.73 min for the ESSM group) and hospitalization fees of the CFCM group were significantly lower than those of the ESSM group. The average hospitalization time of the two groups had no statistical significance. No single case had surgical intervention or complications, such as gastric bleeding, perforation, peritonitis, or abdominal abscess. CONCLUSION: The CFCM and the ESSM are safe and effective techniques for gastric defect closure after EFR for gastric SMTs. Because of the "chopsticks effect," the CFCM more suitable for the lesions located at the gastric fundus, the greater curvature or anterior wall of the gastric body and gastric antrum.