These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The safety profile of automated collections: an analysis of more than 1 million collections.
    Author: Wiltbank TB, Giordano GF.
    Journal: Transfusion; 2007 Jun; 47(6):1002-5. PubMed ID: 17524089.
    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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]