Hemoglobin determination in blood donors

Evidence-based criteria for the care and selection of blood donors, with some comments on the relationship to blood supply, and emphasis on the management of donation-induced iron depletion

Blood Services, which, in the UK, spend over 0.5% of the NHS budget, are generally subject to quality, regulatory, economic and political authority. As only persons in good health should give blood, Services have refined donor selection criteria and aim to base them on evidence; but they also have to balance the number of donations collected with product demand. Applying selection criteria inevitably leads to deferrals, which donors experience very negatively. Compared with successful donors, even temporary deferrals reduce return rates significantly, especially of first attenders. In order to encourage donor return and sustain supplies, selection criteria should be optimal. However, a major tool for managing patients--evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs)--cannot apply to donor selection, so criteria have to be defined by alternatives, such as clinical studies, epidemiology and even what experts deem to be pathophysiologically feasible. The recommended volume of blood taken from each donor at each attendance (450 mL, which was based on old studies) was increased because of greater processing losses (buffy-coat derived platelets, leucofiltration etc.). Although faint rates and donation-induced iron depletion are reduced by lowering bleeding volume and bleeding less frequently, other optimizing strategies including iron supplementation have been trialled and could be enhanced by more RCTs. Better but more complex indicators of donor iron status than one-off Hb thresholds are possible. Regulators and decision-makers must encourage more studies. This review does not consider aphaeresis donors of blood components other than red cells in detail, or the prevention of transfusion-transmitted infections.

Accuracy of predonation Hct sampling affects donor safety, eligibility, and deferral rates

BACKGROUND

Safe blood donation depends upon reliable predonation Hct screening. Earstick (ES) capillary samples are frequently used, but they may not be accurate.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Predonation ES and fingerstick (FS) and postdonation venous Hct results were compared in 1960 whole-blood and 210 apheresis donors. The validity of using postdonation venous samples to evaluate predonation ES and FS Hct was assessed in 20 whole-blood donors. The impact of Hct screening method on donor Hct deferrals was examined during periods when either ES or FS sampling was used exclusively.

RESULTS

All donors were eligible to donate on the basis of a predonation capillary Hct of > or = 38 percent. In venous samples obtained immediately after donation, 36 percent of whole-blood donors had a Hct <38 percent. With correction for a decrease of approximately 2 Hct units during donation, 20 percent of these donors had a predonation Hct <38 percent. The lowest venous Hct was 23.1 percent. FS samples showed better correlation with venous Hct. Hct discrepancies were similar for apheresis donors. Hct deferrals were significantly higher with FS sampling, especially among women.

CONCLUSION

Hct determinations from ES samples overestimate venous Hct. Fingerstick samples are more sensitive in detecting anemia. The accuracy of predonation Hct sampling has implications for donor safety, eligibility, and deferral rates.