Cushing, Melissa M.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), a pandemic. Global health care now faces unprecedented challenges with widespread and rapid human-to-human transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and high morbidity and mortality with COVID-19 worldwide. Across the world, medical care is hampered by a critical shortage of not only hand sanitizers, personal protective equipment, ventilators, and hospital beds, but also impediments to the blood supply. Blood donation centers in many areas around the globe have mostly closed. Donors, practicing social distancing, some either with illness or undergoing self-quarantine, are quickly diminishing. Drastic public health initiatives have focused on containment and “flattening the curve” while invaluable resources are being depleted. In some countries, the point has been reached at which the demand for such resources, including donor blood, outstrips the supply. Questions as to the safety of blood persist. Although it does not appear very likely that the virus can be transmitted through allogeneic blood transfusion, this still remains to be fully determined. As options dwindle, we must enact regional and national shortage plans worldwide and more vitally disseminate the knowledge of and immediately implement patient blood management (PBM). PBM is an evidence-based bundle of care to optimize medical and surgical patient outcomes by clinically managing and preserving a patient’s own blood. This multinational and diverse group of authors issue this “Call to Action” underscoring “The Essential Role of Patient Blood Management in the Management of Pandemics” and urging all stakeholders and providers to implement the practical and commonsense principles of PBM and its multiprofessional and multimodality approaches.

BackgroundPlasma constituents have been implicated in some types of platelet (PLT) transfusion reactions. Leukoreduced apheresis PLTs stored in InterSol have 65% less plasma than apheresis PLTs stored in 100% plasma (PPs). This study compared transfusion reaction rates in InterSol PLTs (PLT additive solution [PAS] C) versus PPs.Study Design and MethodsThe study design was an open‐label, nonrandomized retrospective review. Statistical methods were applied to substantiate noninferiority and superiority of PAS C compared to PP in terms of transfusion reaction rates. Adverse reactions (ARs) were categorized using the Biovigilance Component of the National Healthcare Safety Network. Active surveillance was used to monitor all transfusions, both with ARs and without ARs.ResultsA total of 14,005 transfusions from six study sites were included, with 9845 PP transfusions given to 2202 patients and 4160 PAS C to 1444 patients. A total of 165 ARs were reported. Percentages of transfusions with ARs were 1.37% for PPs, 0.55% for PAS C, and 1.13% overall. The relative risk (RR) for PAS C versus PPs was calculated as 0.403 with an upper confidence limit (UCL) of 0.663. Overall, ARs with the highest incidence were allergic transfusion reactions (ATRs) and febrile nonhemolytic transfusion reactions (FNHTRs), at 0.66 and 0.40% of total transfusions reported, respectively. The relative risks (UCLs) for ATRs and FNHTRs, respectively, were 0.350 (0.686) and 0.336 (0.827).ConclusionsPAS C PLTs were statistically superior and noninferior to PPs with respect to the transfusion‐related AR rate. PAS C noninferiority and superiority were also demonstrated for ATRs and FNHTRs, separately.