Citations

Abstract Background and Objectives Cryoprecipitated antihemophilic factor (cryoprecipitate), fibrinogen concentrate (FC), and pathogen‐reduced cryoprecipitated fibrinogen complex (PR cryoprecipitate) are sources of fibrinogen replacement, and each has advantages and disadvantages in terms of cost, efficacy, safety, and logistics of administration. This study examines the respective utilization frequencies of these different products at institutions in North America and the factors influencing the decision on which one(s) to adopt. Materials and Methods A survey was distributed via email to contacts for Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB)‐accredited blood banks/transfusion services. Survey questions covered topics including the availability and usage of FC, cryoprecipitate, and PR cryoprecipitate, as well as the perceived advantages of each product. Results A total of 53 responses were received from surveyed institutions (estimated 25% response rate). Over half (31/53, 58.5%) of respondents exclusively used cryoprecipitate, 30.2% (16/53) used two sources of fibrinogen replacement, and 7.5% (4/53) used all three (cryoprecipitate, FC, and PR cryoprecipitate). More than half of the institutions restricted FC to specific indications, primarily for cost containment. The most commonly cited advantages of FC over cryoprecipitate were storage convenience and rapid reconstitution. Conclusion Surveyed institutions in the United States and Canada primarily use cryoprecipitate for fibrinogen replacement, with variable usage of FC and limited usage of PR cryoprecipitate. The perception of FC being more expensive than cryoprecipitate predominated. Further studies comparing available fibrinogen replacement options would be valuable, particularly with consideration of product acquisition cost, wastage, impacts on utilization of other blood products, and patient outcomes.

Abstract Background Rh immune globulin (RhIG) is used to prevent D alloimmunization and reduce the risk of hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn (HDFN). Its use has been expanded to include immunoprophylaxis after D‐incompatible transfusions. In the United States, a protracted RhIG shortage began in 2023. The AABB (Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies) Clinical Hemotherapy Subsection created a survey to assess RhIG usage patterns during this shortage. Methods A survey was developed and electronically distributed to AABB‐accredited institutions. The number of responses was tallied. Frequencies were calculated, and free text comments were categorized. Results A total of 112 responses (13.7%) were received from all regions of the United States. While 6.2% (6/97) of respondents noticed increased RhIG usage, 70.0% (56/80) experienced a shortage of RhIG. The most common indication reported for RhIG use was D‐negative pregnant patients carrying a D‐unknown or D‐positive fetus/neonate. Some respondents also permitted RhIG use in D‐negative adult males and females outside of childbearing age following D‐incompatible transfusion. The most common institutional responses to the shortage were to: formally monitor RhIG inventory ( n = 37), add ( n = 34)/switch ( n = 24) manufacturers, and redistribute RhIG between facilities ( n = 22). Few respondents ( n = 7) limited or discontinued RhIG use in non‐obstetric patients. Conclusions While the majority of survey respondents were affected by the RhIG shortage, transfusion services still allowed RhIG to be issued outside of obstetric care. Given that RhIG is a limited resource and its intended goal is to reduce anti‐D HDFN, more effective management of RhIG utilization is needed.

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.