Shmookler, Aaron

AbstractBackgroundCurrent Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB) standards require transfusion services to have a policy on Rh immune globulin (RhIG) immunoprophylaxis for when RhD‐negative patients are exposed to RhD‐positive red cells. This is a survey of AABB‐accredited transfusion services in the United States (US) regarding institutional policies and practices on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD‐negative patients receive RhD‐positive (i.e., RhD‐incompatible) packed red blood cell (pRBC) and platelet transfusions.ResultsApproximately half of the respondents (50.4%, 116/230) have policies on RhIG administration after RhD‐incompatible pRBC and platelet transfusions, while others had policies for only pRBC (13.5%, 31/230) or only platelet (17.8%, 41/230) transfusions, but not both. In contrast, 18.3% (42/230) report that their institution has no written policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD‐incompatible transfusions. Most institutions (70.2%, 99/141) do not have policies addressing safety parameters to mitigate the risk of hemolysis associated with the high dose of RhIG required to prevent RhD alloimmunization after RhD‐incompatible pRBC transfusions.DiscussionWith approximately half of US AABB‐accredited institutions report having policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after both RhD‐incompatible pRBC and platelet transfusions, some institutions may not be in compliance with AABB standards. Further, most with policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD‐incompatible pRBC transfusion do not have written safeguards to mitigate the risk of hemolysis associated with the high dose of RhIG required.ConclusionThis survey underscores the diverse and inadequate institutional policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD exposure in Rh‐negative patients via transfusion. This observation identifies an opportunity to improve transfusion safety.

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.