Rajbhandary, Srijana

AbstractBackgroundPrevious studies have demonstrated low first‐time donor return rates (DRR) following catastrophic events. Little is known, however, about the influence of demographic factors on the DRR of first‐time donors during the COVID‐19 pandemic, including the unique motivation of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donors as compared to non‐CCP donors.Study Design and MethodsThirteen blood collection organizations submitted deidentified data from first‐time CCP and non‐CCP donors returning for regular (non‐CCP) donations during the pandemic. DRR was calculated as frequencies. Demographic factors associated with returning donors: race/ethnicity, gender, and generation (Gen Z: 19–24, Millennial: 25–40, Gen X: 41–56, and Boomer: ≥57 years old), within the CCP and non‐CCP first‐time cohorts were compared using chi‐square test at p < .05 statistical significance.ResultsFrom March 2020 through December 2021, there were a total of 44,274 first‐time CCP and 980,201 first‐time non‐CCP donors. DRR were 14.6% (range 11.9%–43.3%) and 46.6% (range 10.0%–76.9%) for CCP and non‐CCP cohorts, respectively. Age over 40 years (Gen X and Boomers), female gender, and White race were each associated with higher return in both donor cohorts (p < .001). For the non‐CCP return donor cohort, the Millennial and Boomers were comparable.ConclusionThe findings demonstrate differences in returning donor trends between the two donor cohorts. The motivation of a first‐time CCP donor may be different than that of a non‐CCP donor. Further study to improve first‐time donor engagement would be worthwhile to expand the donor base with a focus on blood donor diversity emphasizing engagement of underrepresented minorities and younger donors.

AbstractBackgroundMass casualty incidents (MCIs) create an immediate surge in blood product demand. We hypothesize local inventories in major U.S. cities would not meet this demand.Study Design and MethodsA simulated blast in a large crowd estimated casualty numbers. Ideal resuscitation was defined as equal amounts of red blood cells (RBCs), plasma, platelets, and cryoprecipitate. Inventory was prospectively collected from six major U.S. cities at six time points between January and July 2019. City‐wide blood inventories were classified as READY (>1 U/injured survivor), DEFICIENT (<10 U/severely injured survivor), or RISK (between READY and DEFICIENT), before and after resupply from local distribution centers (DC), and features of DEFICIENT cities were identified.ResultsThe simulated blast resulted in 2218 injured survivors including 95 with severe injuries. Balanced resuscitation would require between 950 and 2218 units each RBC, plasma, platelets and cryoprecipitate. Inventories in 88 hospitals/health systems and 10 DCs were assessed. Of 36 city‐wide surveys, RISK inventories included RBCs (n = 16; 44%), plasma (n = 24; 67%), platelets (n = 6; 17%), and cryoprecipitate (n = 22; 61%) while DEFICIENT inventories included platelets (n = 30; 83%) and cryoprecipitate (n = 12; 33%). Resupply shifted most RBC and plasma inventories to READY, but some platelet and cryoprecipitate inventories remained at RISK (n = 24; 67% and n = 12; 33%, respectively) or even DEFICIENT (n = 11; 31% and n = 6; 17%, respectively). Cities with DEFICIENT inventories were smaller (p <.001) with fewer blood products per trauma bed (p <.001).DiscussionIn this simulated blast event, blood product demand exceeded local supply in some major U.S. cities. Options for closing this gap should be explored to optimize resuscitation during MCIs.

AbstractBackgroundThe SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic disrupted hospital operations, affected the blood supply, and challenged the health care system to develop new therapeutic options, including convalescent plasma (CCP). The aim of this study is to describe and analyze blood supply fluctuations and the use of convalescent plasma in 2020.MethodsAABB distributed a weekly and biweekly questionnaire through email to hospital‐based members (HBM).ResultsThe survey was sent to 887 HBM with 479 unique respondents, most of the hospitals served pediatric and adult patients, and all states of the country participated, except Idaho and Vermont. Fifty four percent of HBM reported increased wastage in the early phase of the pandemic (May), which decreased to 4% by the end of June and throughout the rest of the year. The majority of HBM reported receiving alerts from their blood suppliers reporting blood shortages throughout the year. During March and April, only 12% of HBM were performing elective surgical procedures. The top reasons to delay procedures were: bed availability (28%); COVID‐19 caseload (23%; and blood availability (19%). By mid‐April, 42% HBM had transfused CCP and reported >24 h delay in getting the units; the vast majority obtained CCP using the Expanded Access Protocol, and later, the Emergency Use Authorization. HBM consistently prioritized the most severe patients to receive CCP, but the proportion of severely ill recipients fell from 52% to 37% between May and October, with an increase from 5% to 21% of HBM providing CCP transfusion early in the course of the disease.DiscussionBlood utilization and availability fluctuated during the pandemic. The fluctuations appeared to be related to the number of COVID‐19 in the community. The use and regulatory landscape of CCP rapidly evolved over the first 8 months of the pandemic.

AbstractBackgroundAlthough the safety and therapeutic efficacy of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) has been extensively evaluated, the safety of CCP donation has not been explored in a multi‐institutional context.Study design and methodsNine blood collection organizations (BCOs) participated in a multi‐institutional donor hemovigilance effort to assess the safety of CCP donation. Donor adverse events (DAEs) were defined according to the Standard for Surveillance of Complications Related to Blood Donation, and severity was assessed using the severity grading tool. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine attributes associated with DAE severity.ResultsThe overall DAE rate was 37.7 per 1000 donations. Repeat apheresis and apheresis‐naïve donors experienced adverse event rates of 19.9 and 49.8 per 1000 donations, respectively. Female donors contributed 51.9% of CCP donations with a DAE rate of 49.4 per 1000 donations. The DAE rate for male donors was 27.4 per 1000 donations. Vasovagal reactions accounted for over half of all reported DAEs (51.1%). After adjustment, volume of CCP donated was associated with vasovagal reaction severity (odds ratio [OR] 6.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5–17.1). Donor age and donation history were also associated with DAE severity. Considerable differences in DAE types and rates were observed across the participating BCOs despite the use of standardized hemovigilance definitions.ConclusionThe safety of CCP donation appears comparable to that of conventional apheresis plasma donation with similar associated risk factors for DAE types and severity.