Stubbs, James R

AbstractBackgroundRecently the US Food and Drug Administration has granted variances to select blood centers to supply cold‐stored platelet components (CSP). In hemorrhage resuscitation warming of blood components with approved fluid warming devices is common.Study Design and MethodsPathogen‐reduced apheresis platelet units were collected and stored in one of two ways: (1) CSP‐I, (2) CSP‐D. CSP‐I were collected and immediately stored at 1–6°C until used. CSP‐D were collected and stored at 20–24°C for 5 days and transferred to storage at 1–6°C until use. Aggregometry using arachidonic acid (AA), adenosine diphosphate (ADP) and collagen as agonists was performed on the unit samples before and after the units were infused through a Ranger blood‐warming device.ResultsCSP‐I, 23 units, had very high aggregation responses to all agonists (all ≥47.6 ± 20.7). There was a statistically significant reduction in ADP‐induced aggregometry results from 55.1 ± 23.2 before compared to 33.5 ± 14.6 following infusion of the PLT through the blood warmer (p < .001). There were no differences in AA and collagen aggregometry results before and after the infusion of the platelets through the blood warmer. CSP‐D had 5 of the 15 units with visible clotting in the bag. The 10 CSP‐Ds studied had lower aggregation than all agonists before and after infusion through the blood‐warming device (all ≤49.9 ± 35.9).ConclusionWe detected a statistically significant reduction in ADP‐induced aggregometry in CSP‐I run through a Ranger blood‐warming device with no change with AA or collagen agonist aggregometry.

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.

Abstract Background The current global pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in the blood supply network. Given the recent shortages, there must be a civilian plan for massively bleeding patients when there are no blood products on the shelf. Recognizing that the time to death in bleeding patients is less than 2 h, timely resupply from unaffected locations is not possible. One solution is to transfuse emergency untested whole blood (EUWB), similar to the extensive military experience fine‐tuned over the last 19 years. While this concept is anathema in current civilian transfusion practice, it seems prudent to have a vetted plan in place. Methods and Materials During the early stages of the 2020 global pandemic, a multidisciplinary and international group of clinicians with broad experience in transfusion medicine communicated routinely. The result is a planning document that provides both background information and a high‐level guide on how to emergently deliver EUWB for patients who would otherwise die of hemorrhage. Results and Conclusions Similar plans have been utilized in remote locations, both on the battlefield and in civilian practice. The proposed recommendations are designed to provide high‐level guidance for experienced blood bankers, transfusion experts, clinicians, and health authorities. Like with all emergency preparedness, it is always better to have a well‐thought‐out and trained plan in place, rather than trying to develop a hasty plan in the midst of a disaster. We need to prevent the potential for empty shelves and bleeding patients dying for lack of blood.

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.

BackgroundPlatelet (PLT) transfusions are an important component of hemostatic resuscitation. The AABB has published several guidelines recommending that PLT units should not be infused through blood warming devices.Study Design and MethodsThirty‐one units of hospital blood bank apheresis PLTs were obtained. PLT‐rich plasma (PRP) aggregometry and thromboelastography (TEG) were performed on the unit samples before and after the units were infused through a Ranger blood/fluid warming device.ResultsThere were no differences in any of the aggregometry results before and after infusion of the PLTs through the blood warmer (all P > .32). There was a significant reduction in the TEG maximum amplitude (MA) of 69.8 ± 7.9 mm before and 66.0 ± 8.8 mm after (P < .001) infusion of the PLTs through the blood warmer and α angle 61.8 ± 9.4° before and 59.3 ± 8.2° after (P = .044) infusion of the PLTs through the blood warmer, although both mean values were within normal range for the TEG and not clinically significant. There were very good correlations of aggregometry and TEG results before and after infusion of the PLTs through the blood warmer device.ConclusionThis study did not demonstrate significant deleterious effect on PLT function from infusing apheresis PLT units through a blood warming device by PRP aggregometry. We did detect a statistically significant—but not clinically significant—reduction in TEG MA and α angle. The prohibition of transfusing PLT units though the Ranger blood warming device is not indicated.