Transfusion · 2017
Parental versus non-parental-directed donation: an 11-year experience of infectious disease testing at a pediatric tertiary care blood donor center.
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.
Jacquot Cyril, Seo Andrew, Miller Peter M, Lezama Niara, Criss Valli R, Colvin Camilla, Luban Naomi L C, Wong Edward C C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Directed donation is associated with a higher prevalence of donations that are positive for infectious disease markers; however, little is known about the positive rates among parental-directed, non-parental-directed, and allogeneic donations.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We reviewed blood-collection records from January 1997 through December 2008, including infectious disease results, among parental, non-parental, and community donations. Infectious disease rates were compared by Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS: In total, 1532 parental, 4910 non-parental, and 17,423 community donations were examined. Among parental donors, the median rate of positive infectious disease testing was 8.66% (interquartile range (IQR), 4.49%) for first-time donors and 1.26% (IQR, 5.86%) for repeat donors; among non-parental donors, the rate was 1.09% (IQR, 0.98%) for first-time donors and 0% (IQR, 0.83%) for repeat donors; and, among community donors, the rate was 2.95% (IQR, 1.50%) for first-time donors and 0.45% (IQR, 0.82%) for repeat donors. The mean rate of positive infectious disease testing for first-time parental donors was significantly higher (7.63%), whereas all repeat donors had similar rates. However, the rate of positive infectious disease testing among first-time non-parental donors was significantly lower than that in the other groups, especially for the period from 2001 through 2008.
CONCLUSION: First-time non-parental and community donors had significantly higher infectious disease risk than the respective repeat donors. First-time parental donors had the highest rates of positive infectious disease testing. We suggest that first-time parental blood donation should be discouraged. Repeat community donors or first-time non-parental donors provide a safer alternative. These findings can foster better patient education, donor selection, and possibly a reduced risk of infectious disease.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We reviewed blood-collection records from January 1997 through December 2008, including infectious disease results, among parental, non-parental, and community donations. Infectious disease rates were compared by Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS: In total, 1532 parental, 4910 non-parental, and 17,423 community donations were examined. Among parental donors, the median rate of positive infectious disease testing was 8.66% (interquartile range (IQR), 4.49%) for first-time donors and 1.26% (IQR, 5.86%) for repeat donors; among non-parental donors, the rate was 1.09% (IQR, 0.98%) for first-time donors and 0% (IQR, 0.83%) for repeat donors; and, among community donors, the rate was 2.95% (IQR, 1.50%) for first-time donors and 0.45% (IQR, 0.82%) for repeat donors. The mean rate of positive infectious disease testing for first-time parental donors was significantly higher (7.63%), whereas all repeat donors had similar rates. However, the rate of positive infectious disease testing among first-time non-parental donors was significantly lower than that in the other groups, especially for the period from 2001 through 2008.
CONCLUSION: First-time non-parental and community donors had significantly higher infectious disease risk than the respective repeat donors. First-time parental donors had the highest rates of positive infectious disease testing. We suggest that first-time parental blood donation should be discouraged. Repeat community donors or first-time non-parental donors provide a safer alternative. These findings can foster better patient education, donor selection, and possibly a reduced risk of infectious disease.