The new donor vigilance system in Denmark reveals regional differences in adverse reactions supposedly caused by variation in the registration

A rare vascular injury in a blood donor after whole blood donation

BACKGROUND

Blood donation is a safe process though reactions may still occur. We describe a rare vascular complication in a frequent donor, with improvements in the collection process aimed at avoiding future events.

METHODS

A 63-year-old woman presented with local pain and an apparent collection in the left arm 8 days after donation. Duplex ultrasound identified a superficial liquid collection and signs of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) between the cubital vein and an arterial branch. A computed tomography (CT)-angio performed 1 day after ultrasound did not identify signs of AVF, followed by a new duplex which confirmed CT-angio findings. It was assumed that a traumatic AVF evolved with spontaneous thrombosis. In the early follow-up (18 days), a progressive regression of hematoma was observed without any sequelae.

RESULTS

Investigation showed a faster whole blood bag collection time (3 min; normal: 5-9 min), and the processed packed red blood cell had a brighter red color than usual. The donor reported local bleeding after needle withdrawal, not observed in previous donations and a bruise forming on the same day. No arterial puncture (AP) was noticed by the collection staff during the procedure. The staff was retrained and actions were taken focusing on more active surveillance of late reactions, highlighting the importance of post-donation information by the donors, regardless of any adverse reaction observed, to detect late complications.

CONCLUSION

We described an uncommon AP in a donor that was not identified, leading to an AVF that spontaneously thrombosed.

Safety and protection of plasma donors: A scoping review and evidence gap map

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

As part of a large-scale project to safely increase plasma collection in Europe, the current scoping review identifies the existing evidence (gaps) on adverse events (AEs) and other health effects in plasmapheresis donors, as well as factors that may be associated with such events/effects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched six databases and three registries. Study characteristics (publication type, language, study design, population, outcomes, associated factors, time of assessment, duration of follow-up, number and frequency of donations, convalescent plasma [y/n], setting and location) were synthesized narratively and in an interactive evidence gap map (EGM).

RESULTS

Ninety-four research articles and five registrations were identified. Around 90% were observational studies (57 controlled and 33 uncontrolled), and most of them were performed in Europe (55%) or the United States (20%). Factors studied in association with donor health included donor characteristics (e.g., sex, age) (n = 27), cumulative number of donations (n = 21), donation frequency (n = 11), plasma collection device or programme (n = 11), donor status (first time vs. repeat) (n = 10), donation volume per session (n = 8), time in donation programme (n = 3), preventive measures (n = 2) or other (n = 9).

CONCLUSION

The current scoping review provides an accessible tool for researchers and policymakers to identify the available evidence (gaps) concerning plasmapheresis donation safety. Controlled prospective studies with long-term donor follow-up are scarce. Furthermore, additional experimental studies comparing the health effects of different donation frequencies are required to inform a safe upper limit for donation frequency.

A Danish national, multicentre evaluation of the new donor vigilance system among different staff groups

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Two years after implementing a new national donor vigilance system, the Danish Haemovigilance Committee conducted a nationwide survey to evaluate the implementation among different staff groups. We present the results here.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was designed as an anonymous online survey to evaluate the satisfaction with the new registration, understanding of the parameters used and the user-friendliness. The REDCap platform was used. The questionnaire consisted of 22 questions. Ordinal variables were answered using five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Successful implementation was defined as mean overall satisfaction ≥4 and mean understanding of the individual components (adverse reaction category, severity and imputability) in the registration ≥4.

RESULTS

In all, 104 staff members (77.9% donation staff) participated. The mean (SD) overall satisfaction among all participants was 3.96 (0.94), highest among medical doctors (4.43 (0.78)) and lowest for administrative or other personnel (2.78 (1.09)). The mean scores for understanding the adverse reaction categories, severity and imputability were 3.92 (0.94), 3.92 (0.94) and 3.88 (1.00), respectively. Experience with a previous donor vigilance system was associated with lower scores. The most successful implementation programme included a medical doctor for introduction and a contact person.

CONCLUSION

The goal for successful implementation was not met. However, the overall attitude towards the new registration was positive and indicates that the system is suitable for different staff groups. Our results suggest that implementation could benefit from special attention to administrative staff and those accustomed to another donor vigilance system.