Gammon, Richard R

Abstract Background and Objectives Artificial intelligence (AI) has been gaining increasing interest in healthcare. During the 2024 International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) Congress, the Clinical Transfusion Working Party (CTWP) conducted a session to explore the exciting intersection of AI in transfusion medicine (TM) practice, education and research. We report here the potential applications and the session outcome. Materials and Methods A pre‐workshop survey explored the participants' demographics and areas of use of AI and whether they have had any AI‐specific training or education. The workshop included presentations on the regulatory aspects of AI use and its application in TM practice, education and research. These were followed by round‐table discussions to explore participants' experience and concerns. Results The workshop had 72 attendees, with 38% falling in the 36–45‐year age group. A total of 70% indicated the use of AI, but only 12% reported having specific training or education. Participants expressed interest in different potential applications but also shared concerns on over‐reliance, potential loss of skills, the accuracy of provided information and content plagiarism. Conclusion The findings of the workshop highlight the need for training, educational resources, standards and regulatory frameworks to guide the use of AI tools in the field of TM.

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.