The safety profile of automated collections: an analysis of more than 1 million collections

Transfusion. 2007 Jun;47(6):1002-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2007.01224.x.

Abstract

Background: Recent technology allows for the collection of 2-unit red cells (RBCs) and single-unit RBCs plus plasma or platelets (PLTs).

Study design and methods: With a common definition of adverse events, 1,023,682 whole-blood collections were evaluated and compared with 249,154 two-unit apheresis RBC collections, 40,870 single-apheresis RBC collections, and 90,082 apheresis PLT collections.

Results: The data show that manual whole-blood collections have a low incidence of moderate and severe reactions (47.1 per 10,000 collections, 0.47%). Single-unit RBCs collected by apheresis have the same safety profile (37.44 per 10,000 collections, p > 0.20). Double-RBC collections by apheresis and plateletpheresis have a significantly lower reaction rate (15.65 per 10,000 collections, p < 0.00005; and 14.84 per 10,000 collections, p < 0.00005, respectively).

Conclusion: It is concluded that automated collections are safe or safer than manual whole-blood collections. There should be few concerns when procedures are performed according to manufacturer's instructions.

MeSH terms

  • Automation* / statistics & numerical data
  • Blood Donors*
  • Cytapheresis* / statistics & numerical data
  • Erythrocytes / cytology
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Safety* / statistics & numerical data