Transfusion · 2015
Easier said than done: ABO compatibility and D matching in apheresis platelet transfusions.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dunbar Nancy M, Katus Matthew C, Freeman Christine M, Szczepiorkowski Zbigniew M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Many hospital transfusion services prioritize ABO plasma compatibility in platelet (PLT) transfusion to minimize risk for acute hemolytic transfusion reactions. In spite of the low risk of D alloimmunization associated with apheresis PLT transfusion, attempts may also be made to provide D- PLTs to D- patients. This study was undertaken to assess how often ABO compatibility and/or D matching occurs at our institution and how the ABO and D mix of our PLT supply impacts PLT selection.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the ABO and D type of all PLTs transfused plus the age, sex, and ABO and D type of all PLT recipients between January 2010 and March 2014 (51 months).
RESULTS: We provided ABO-identical PLTs for 5281 (54.6%), ABO plasma-compatible and cellular-incompatible for 3136 (32.4%), ABO low-titer plasma-incompatible and cellular-compatible for 1150 (11.9%), ABO plasma-incompatible and cellular-compatible for 30 (0.3%), and ABO plasma-incompatible and cellular-incompatible for 72 (0.7%). PLT supply did not match PLT demand based on patient ABO type, primarily due to a lower than expected supply of group O PLTs and higher than expected supply of group A and AB. D- patients were less likely to receive ABO-identical PLT transfusions (p = 0.0008), but were more likely to receive D- PLT transfusions (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: At our hospital, available inventory and PLT selection practices resulted in the majority of group O patients receiving cellular-incompatible PLT transfusions. Efforts to provide D- PLTs to D- patients also resulted in fewer D- patients receiving ABO-identical PLT transfusions.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the ABO and D type of all PLTs transfused plus the age, sex, and ABO and D type of all PLT recipients between January 2010 and March 2014 (51 months).
RESULTS: We provided ABO-identical PLTs for 5281 (54.6%), ABO plasma-compatible and cellular-incompatible for 3136 (32.4%), ABO low-titer plasma-incompatible and cellular-compatible for 1150 (11.9%), ABO plasma-incompatible and cellular-compatible for 30 (0.3%), and ABO plasma-incompatible and cellular-incompatible for 72 (0.7%). PLT supply did not match PLT demand based on patient ABO type, primarily due to a lower than expected supply of group O PLTs and higher than expected supply of group A and AB. D- patients were less likely to receive ABO-identical PLT transfusions (p = 0.0008), but were more likely to receive D- PLT transfusions (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: At our hospital, available inventory and PLT selection practices resulted in the majority of group O patients receiving cellular-incompatible PLT transfusions. Efforts to provide D- PLTs to D- patients also resulted in fewer D- patients receiving ABO-identical PLT transfusions.