FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1966103257> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1966103257 endingPage "7" @default.
• W1966103257 startingPage "5" @default.
• W1966103257 abstract "“The safest blood is your own” has been the mantra of blood bank medical directors for more than a quarter of a century. The principles of autologous blood collection—preoperative deposit, intraoperative salvage, and postoperative recovery—were taught to a generation of residents, nurses, and technologists and were included in virtually every educational program involving blood transfusion. For much of this period, however, the practice was honored primarily in the breach. Except in a few institutions where staff evolved an investigational interest in autologous techniques, little autologous transfusion was actually practiced.1Toy PT Slrauss RG Stchling LC et al.Predeposited autologous blood for elective surgery: a national multicenter study.N Engl J Med. 1987; 316: 517-520Crossref PubMed Scopus (262) Google Scholar The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) epidemic and its early association with blood transfusion changed transfusion practice dramatically. For more than a decade the public has demanded autologous blood, and physicians have dutifully collected and stored it, frequently for patients who had little chance of requiring transfusion. Some states went so far as to pass laws mandating that surgical patients have the option of autologous transfusion explained and the opportunity to donate preoperative autologous blood provided.2Paul Gann Blood Safety Act. §1645 of the California Health and Safety Code, effective January 1. 1990.Google Scholar Accordingly, it came as no surprise that some 50% to 60% of preoperative autologous donations went unused or that autologous units were transfused inappropriately to patients who did not need them, according to medically accepted transfusion guidelines. Preoperative autologous donation came to represent an insurance policy of sorts to prevent or minimize a patient's exposure to a blood supply that had been widely, if somewhat unfairly, characterized as “tainted.” If the truth be told, autologous blood “insurance” would have been an uncommonly good investment in the 1960s and the early 1980s. Allogeneic transfusions were administered more freely in those times, and the risks of allogeneic blood were both underestimated and unappreciated. A patient undergoing open heart surgery at the National Institutes of Health in the late 1960s had almost a 1 in 3 chance of contracting hepatitis from blood transfusion.3Alter DJ Reesink IIW Xishioka K New trends in blood banking.in: IX Triennial International Symposium on Viral Hepatitis and Liver Disease, Rome, Italy. Fdzioni Minerva Medica, Turin, Italv1997: 358-362Google Scholar The incidence rates of what we then called non-A, non-B hepatitis were as high as 21%. Even after implementation of hepatitis B screening and conversion to an all-volunteer blood donor supply in the late 1970s, the risk of transfusiontransmitted hepatitis approached 10%. Today, the combination of volunteer blood, stringent donor eligibility criteria, and sensitive testing has reduced the risk of posttransfusion hepatitis to about 1 infection per 100,000 U transfused, a risk so low that it can no longer be measured accurately with prospective studies but must be estimated from mathematical models.4Schrieber GB Busch MP Klcinma SI Korelil JJ Relrovinis F Pidemiologv Donor Studv. 'lite risk of transfusion-transmitted viral infections.N Engl J Med. 1996; 334: 1685-1690Crossref PubMed Scopus (1602) Google Scholar The impending introduction of blood screening technology using nucleic acid–based tests to detect the viruses directly promises to reduce the risk even further. If the success in reducing posttransfusion hepatitis has been gratifying, the virtual elimination of transfusion-transmitted human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been nothing less than spectacular. Models for estimating the risk of HIV-1 transmission through blood in San Francisco, Calif, indicate a rate approaching 1 infection for every 100 U transfused even before the first patient presented with the clinical syndrome that we now associate with AIDS in 1981.5Busch MP Young MJ Samson SM Mosley JW Ward JW Perkins HA Transfusion Safely Study (jroup. Risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HV) transmission by blood transfusions before the implementation of IIIV-1 antibody screening.Transfusion. 1991; 31: 4-11Crossref PubMed Scopus (130) Google Scholar By 1982, before the first cluster of immune-impaired hemophilia patients was recognized and months before the case of the first child with suspected transfusion-related AIDS was published, the risk approximated an astounding 1.1% per transfused unit. The magnitude of the risk could not have been appreciated and has been recognized only in retrospect. With the identification and deferral of donors with high-risk activities in 1983 and the introduction of HIV antibody testing in March of 1985, this risk declined dramatically. Through June 1999, approximately 65 million patients have been transfused with tested blood and blood components, and only 38 adults and 2 children have developed AIDS after receiving blood that screened negative for HIV.6Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, table 5 AIDS cases by age group, exposure category, and sex.HIV'AIDS Surveill Rep. 1999; 11: 12Google Scholar The current estimated risk is about 1 infection per 1 million U transfused. Put a different way, I am unlikely to see an HIV infection caused by allogeneic blood in this hospital for the next 100 years. As tragic as any transfusion-associated HIV infection may be, the protective measures introduced between 1983 and the present reflect a remarkable story of success. How safe is the blood supply today? The risk-benefit calculus of allogeneic transfusion has clearly changed. Trite as it may sound, blood is safer than ever—by at least an order of magnitude. Clinically important viral infections other than hepatitis and HIV occur but are unusual. Cytomegalovirus transmission threatens premature infants and some immunosuppressed transplant recipients, but this risk can be minimized by recruiting seronegative donors or by using leukoreduced components. Infections that cause devastating problems in the developing world are thankfully rare in the United States. Transfusion-transmitted malaria occurs about once in every 4 million red blood cell transfusions, and only 5 cases of Chagas disease have been attributed to transfusion in the United States. However, we live in a global village and can certainly anticipate the intrusion of variant retroviruses and other agents not currently detected by our screening safety net. The Department of Health and Human Services has constructed a comprehensive safety vigilance system to address this concern.7Busch M Chamberland M Epstein I lemma S Khabba/ R Nemo Ci. Oversight and monitoring of blood safelv in the I'niled States.VoxSang. 1999; 77: 67-76Google Scholar For the worried well, tick-borne agents and especially spongiform encephalopathies (eg, Jakob-Creutzfeld disease [CJD], new-variant CJD associated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy) have received an astonishing amount of notoriety given the singular lack of evidence that they pose a risk to the blood supply. We have come to expect this kind of legacy in the aftermath of the devastation wreaked on recipients of HIV-infected blood. Not all adverse transfusion events result from infectious agents.8Klein I, IG Allogeneie transfusion risks in the surgical patient.J Surg. 1995; 170: 21-26Abstract Full Text PDF Scopus (132) Google Scholar Alloimmunization to red blood cell, platelet, protein, and leukocyte antigens occurs after transfusion of allogeneic blood and may complicate future transfusions. Febrile reactions are still common but pose more of an inconvenience to patient and physician than a significant health risk. Transfusion-related acute lung injury, caused by potent leukoagglutinating antibodies in the donor's plasma, may complicate as many as 1 in every 5000 transfusions, but the injury is not often severe enough to require supportive therapy. Transfusion-associated anaphylaxis and graft-vs-host disease remain feared complications of transfusion, but they are sufficiently uncommon to defy meaningful statistical analysis. New information has associated a variety of immunomodulatory effects with allogeneic blood exposure; however, careful prospective studies are conflicting and the importance of these findings remains unresolved.9Klein HG Inimunomodulatorv aspects of transfusion: a once and future risk.Anesthesiology. 1999; 91: 861-865Crossref PubMed Scopus (135) Google Scholar Autologous predeposit transfusion programs do not reduce several risks of blood transfusion. Among the greatest of these is accidental administration of the wrong unit. Incredible as it may seem, mistaken transfusion occurs as often as once in every 12,000 allogeneic transfusions and is the leading cause of fatal hemolytic transfusion reactions, now estimated to occur once in every 600,000 U transfused.10Linden JY Paul B Dressier KP A report of 104 transfusion errors in New York State.Transfusion. 1992; 32: 601-606Crossref PubMed Scopus (263) Google Scholar Studies of errors associated with autologous transfusion in Canada report an error rate of 1 in 149 U, most of which resulted in units that could not be transfused to the donor or in the donor receiving allogeneic blood.11Goldman M Remy-Prince S Trepanier A Decary F Autologous donation error rates in Canada.Transfusion. 1997; 37: 523-527Crossref PubMed Scopus (82) Google Scholar Of far greater concern is a report from a 1992 US survey by the College of American Pathologists that almost 1% of institutions surveyed issued autologous blood to the wrong patient on at least 1 occasion in the previous year, and nearly half of these facilities transfused autologous blood to the wrong patient on more than 1 occasion.12Linden JY Kruskall MS Autologous blood: always safer? [editorial].Transfusion. 1997; 37: 455-456Crossref PubMed Scopus (36) Google Scholar Bacterial contamination of blood components represents another underreported and poorly appreciated risk of transfusion and one that may in fact be increased by autologous blood collection. Microbial contamination, estimated as high as 1 in every 2500 platelet concentrates stored at room temperature and less frequently in red blood cell units stored at refrigerator temperatures, comes from skin contaminants at the phlebotomy site and from the transient bacteremia that all of us experience. Bacterial growth in stored blood results in several patient deaths each year.13Klein HG Dodd RY Ness PM Fratantoni JA Nemo GJ Current status of microbial contamination of blood components: summary of a conference.Transfusion. 1997; 37: 95-101Crossref PubMed Scopus (79) Google Scholar There are currently no effective screening techniques to detect microbial contamination. Since autologous donors are patients or potential patients and are not required to meet the stringent screening criteria developed for volunteer donors, we should expect more frequent bacterial contamination of components drawn from those subjects who have indwelling catheters and poor general health status. Deaths from predeposited autologous units contaminated with bacteria have been reported.12Linden JY Kruskall MS Autologous blood: always safer? [editorial].Transfusion. 1997; 37: 455-456Crossref PubMed Scopus (36) Google Scholar Part of the risk-benefit analysis must include the potential risks to the donor of autologous blood. In a review of 5660 donations from subjects not meeting routine screening criteria, donor reaction rates were higher (4.3% vs 2.7%), although most reactions were considered minor.14Popovsky MA Whitaker B Arnold NL Severe outcomes of allogeneic and autologous blood donations: frequency and characterization.Transfusion. 1995; 35: 734-737Crossref PubMed Scopus (175) Google Scholar However, other studies that included such hemodynamic monitoring as blood pressure, cardiac output, electrocardiographic, and pulse oximetry studies detected disturbing hemodynamic changes in otherwise asymptomatic patients. If phlebotomy places some hemodynamically compromised patients at risk, the benefits of autologous blood are quickly nullified. Even a small increase in fatality rate (1/101,000) negates all benefits associated with autologous donation for coronary artery bypass grafting.15AuBuchon JP Popovsky MA The safety of preoperative autologous blood donation in the nonhospital setting.Transfusion. 1991; 31: 513-517Crossref PubMed Scopus (85) Google Scholar In fact, 1 study reports the frequency of adverse events serious enough to merit hospitalization as 1 in 16,783 autologous donations, 12 times as high as the risk associated with donation by healthy volunteers.16Spiess HD Sassetti R McCarthy RJ Narbone RF Tuman KJ Ivankovieh AD Autologous blood donation: hemodynamics in a high-risk patient population.Transfusion. 1992; 32: 17-22Crossref PubMed Scopus (99) Google Scholar For the first time in more than a decade, the number of autologous collections appears to be declining. While the reasons are not entirely clear, this observation may have serious implications for overall blood availability. Autologous blood collections benefit the community by generating additional units of blood from individuals who might not ordinarily be eligible donors. While these units are not available to the general blood supply, they do replace allogeneic units and therefore comprise a small but important portion of the national blood supply. In 1997, 643,000 autologous units were collected, a decrease of 36.5% from 1994.17National Blood Donor Resource Center Report on Blood Collection and Transfusion in the United States in 1997. National Blood Donor Resource Center, Bethesda, Md1999Google Scholar One reason for the decline in autologous collections in-volves efforts to make autologous predonation strategies data driven and therefore more rational. Most approaches have centered on defining those patients most likely to benefit from autologous transfusion. One such approach has been taken by Nuttall et al18Nuttall GA Santrach PJ Oliver Jr, WC et al.Possible guidelines for autologous red blood cell donations before total hip arthroplasty based on the surgical blood order equation.Mayo Clin Proc. 2000; 75: 10-17Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (24) Google Scholar in this issue of the Proceedings. They attempted to determine the predictors of erythropoiesis in patients electing preoperative autologous donation for hip arthroplasty. From a retrospective analysis of 165 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, these investigators have derived guidelines for preoperative autologous blood collection that promise to increase the efficiency of the procedure. As the authors recognize, their approach is currently only a first approximation—ergo, in the title of their article, it is a “possible” guideline. Their protocol contains many assumptions, and it needs to be validated by a prospective trial. Then the protocol should be tested in other surgical settings and in other institutions and compared with existing algorithms.19Axelrod FB Pepkowitz SH Goldfinger D Establishment of a schedule of optimal preoperative collection of autologous blood.Transfusion. 1989; 29: 677-680Crossref PubMed Scopus (70) Google Scholar Periodic reevaluation is important, since improvements in surgical technique may modify the blood requirement or obviate need entirely. Efforts to apply controlled studies to make more efficient use of predonations and limit donor risk are clearly a good thing. Some observers fear that reduced collections reflect less concern with risk-benefit and rational use than with the rising costs of autologous units in a cost-driven medical economy. Autologous collections are more costly since they require more professional time, special handling, labeling, storage, and inventory management. Reimbursement is notoriously insufficient, especially if the autologous unit is not transfused. Arguments based on cost-effectiveness point at costs ranging from $235,000 to over $23 million per patient quality-adjusted life-year.20Birkmeyer JD AuBuchon JP Littenberg B et al.Cost-effectiveness of preoperative autologous donation in coronary arten bypass grafting.Ann ThoracSurg. 1994; 57: 161-168Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (147) Google Scholar If these are accurate, the increased protection afforded by autologous blood comes at a steep price. There is a final lesson for physicians to remember from the experience with transfusion-transmitted HIV. While our current safety net seems effective against known infectious risks, a newly emerging blood-transmitted agent with a long incubation period or interval of silent infection would not likely be prevented by all the precautions now in place. The chance that such an agent might emerge is small but finite, and it is the patient's perception of risk, not that of the physician, the health insurer, or the framer of health policy, that we must balance against statistics involving death, disability, and dollars. Studies show that people tend to overestimate “dread risks”21Etchason J Pelz L Keller E et al.The cost effectiveness of preoperative autologous blood.N Engl J Med. 1995; 33: 719-721Crossref Scopus (464) Google Scholar (those over which they have no control and that have catastrophic consequences) and “unknown risks.”22Slovie P Perception of risk.Science. 1987; 236: 280-285Crossref PubMed Scopus (5896) Google Scholar Such concerns may not be sufficient reason to return to the irrational and costly overcollection of autologous blood. However, some patients will inevitably demand this expensive insurance against the most remote possibility. Perhaps those who wish additional insurance should be charged an additional private premium. Possible Guidelines for Autologous Red Blood Cell Donations Before Total Hip Arthroplasty Based on the Surgical Blood Order EquationMayo Clinic ProceedingsVol. 75Issue 1PreviewTo determine, in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA), clinical predictive criteria for preoperative autologous blood donation and to propose guidelines to increase the efficiency and reduce the cost of preoperative autologous blood donation. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W1966103257 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1966103257 creator A5046543021 @default.
• W1966103257 date "2000-01-01" @default.
• W1966103257 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W1966103257 title "Transfusion Safety: Avoiding Unnecessary Bloodshed" @default.
• W1966103257 cites W1901544370 @default.
• W1966103257 cites W2001964470 @default.
• W1966103257 cites W2003994985 @default.
• W1966103257 cites W2011628812 @default.
• W1966103257 cites W2017053558 @default.
• W1966103257 cites W2022360787 @default.
• W1966103257 cites W2028065645 @default.
• W1966103257 cites W2051341680 @default.
• W1966103257 cites W2083415130 @default.
• W1966103257 cites W2086263788 @default.
• W1966103257 cites W2091069417 @default.
• W1966103257 cites W2093857659 @default.
• W1966103257 cites W2099168202 @default.
• W1966103257 cites W2135183783 @default.
• W1966103257 cites W2140699246 @default.
• W1966103257 cites W2313290093 @default.
• W1966103257 cites W2341616068 @default.
• W1966103257 cites W4254472001 @default.
• W1966103257 doi "https://doi.org/10.4065/75.1.5" @default.
• W1966103257 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10630750" @default.
• W1966103257 hasPublicationYear "2000" @default.
• W1966103257 type Work @default.
• W1966103257 sameAs 1966103257 @default.
• W1966103257 citedByCount "10" @default.
• W1966103257 countsByYear W19661032572012 @default.
• W1966103257 countsByYear W19661032572013 @default.
• W1966103257 countsByYear W19661032572014 @default.
• W1966103257 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1966103257 hasAuthorship W1966103257A5046543021 @default.
• W1966103257 hasBestOaLocation W19661032571 @default.
• W1966103257 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1966103257 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W1966103257 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1966103257 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W1966103257 hasConcept C545542383 @default.
• W1966103257 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1966103257 hasConceptScore W1966103257C17744445 @default.
• W1966103257 hasConceptScore W1966103257C177713679 @default.
• W1966103257 hasConceptScore W1966103257C199539241 @default.
• W1966103257 hasConceptScore W1966103257C2779473830 @default.
• W1966103257 hasConceptScore W1966103257C545542383 @default.
• W1966103257 hasConceptScore W1966103257C71924100 @default.
• W1966103257 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W1966103257 hasLocation W19661032571 @default.
• W1966103257 hasLocation W19661032572 @default.
• W1966103257 hasOpenAccess W1966103257 @default.
• W1966103257 hasPrimaryLocation W19661032571 @default.
• W1966103257 hasRelatedWork W1591014627 @default.
• W1966103257 hasRelatedWork W1798870981 @default.
• W1966103257 hasRelatedWork W1970371692 @default.
• W1966103257 hasRelatedWork W1995515455 @default.
• W1966103257 hasRelatedWork W2086802883 @default.
• W1966103257 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W1966103257 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W1966103257 hasRelatedWork W3006807502 @default.
• W1966103257 hasRelatedWork W3031052312 @default.
• W1966103257 hasRelatedWork W3032375762 @default.
• W1966103257 hasVolume "75" @default.
• W1966103257 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1966103257 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1966103257 magId "1966103257" @default.
• W1966103257 workType "article" @default.