Transfusion clinique et biologique : journal de la Societe francaise de transfusion sanguine · 2026
Prospective evaluation of pre-procedure education and active monitoring in reducing grade III donor reactions in plateletpheresis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Sil Suhasini, Pandey Hem Chandra, Talwar Manvi, Khiamniungan Chanchi, Naseer Lubna, Coshic Poonam
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Single donor plateletpheresis (SDP) though considered safe is associated with adverse donor reactions (ADRs) in 2.7-19% of cases in reported studies. The primary source of ADRs is passive reporting by the donor though such reporting has the disadvantage of underestimating the actual quantum of ADRs especially in low middle income countries due to limitation of donor understanding of the procedure. Unidentified and missed ADRs compromise donor care and retention. The study thus explored the utility of donor education and active reporting to assess correct incidence of ADRs.
METHOD: This prospective interventional study included consenting male SDP donors. Control arm (n=300) received standard written information about ADRs. Intervention arm (n=300) received pre-procedure symptom education and were actively monitored during procedure. Donor and procedure details were documented; ADRs were graded using AABB's Severity Grading Tool. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS v29.0.
RESULTS: Intervention arm reported a significantly higher ADR (28 donors, 9.3%) compared to control arm (7 donors, 2.3%). ADR severity was grade-I in all donors in intervention arm when compared to control arm where 42.8% of ADR were grade-II to III. The odds of severe ADRs were 98% lower in intervention arm than in control arm (OR=0.02; 95% CI: 0-0.51). Donor and procedural parameters were comparable between arms.
DISCUSSION: Enhanced donor education and active symptom surveillance led to increased detection of grade-I ADRs and reduced progression to grade-II or III reactions. This strategy improves procedural safety and enhances donor experience, supporting its integration into routine apheresis practice.
METHOD: This prospective interventional study included consenting male SDP donors. Control arm (n=300) received standard written information about ADRs. Intervention arm (n=300) received pre-procedure symptom education and were actively monitored during procedure. Donor and procedure details were documented; ADRs were graded using AABB's Severity Grading Tool. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS v29.0.
RESULTS: Intervention arm reported a significantly higher ADR (28 donors, 9.3%) compared to control arm (7 donors, 2.3%). ADR severity was grade-I in all donors in intervention arm when compared to control arm where 42.8% of ADR were grade-II to III. The odds of severe ADRs were 98% lower in intervention arm than in control arm (OR=0.02; 95% CI: 0-0.51). Donor and procedural parameters were comparable between arms.
DISCUSSION: Enhanced donor education and active symptom surveillance led to increased detection of grade-I ADRs and reduced progression to grade-II or III reactions. This strategy improves procedural safety and enhances donor experience, supporting its integration into routine apheresis practice.