Hemovigilance Data: An Effective Approach for Evaluating Bacterial Protection Systems for Platelet Transfusions

Overview

Journal Asian J Transfus Sci

Specialty Hematology

Date 2024 Jul 22

PMID 39036690

Authors

Meshari I Alabdullatif

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background And Objective: Septic transfusion reactions due to bacterial contamination in platelet concentrates (PCs) are continually reported to hemovigilance (HV) programs. Worldwide, blood centers use different systems to avoid transfusion-associated bacterial sepsis in PCs. Herein, national HV data were gathered to compare bacterial protection systems and to assess the risk of bacterial contamination.

Materials And Methods: HV data with definite transfusion-associated bacterial sepsis in PCs were obtained from Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom (U. K.), and Switzerland between 2006 and 2016. These data were reviewed to evaluate bacterial protection systems including early small-volume (ESV), early large-volume (ELV), and delayed large-volume (DLV) bacterial culture screening and pathogen inactivation (PI) treatment.

Results: Implementation of DLV bacterial culture screening in the U. K. and PI treatment in Switzerland resulted in significant reductions ( < 0.05) in transfusion-associated bacterial sepsis for the period of 2011-2016 compared to the prior 4 years (2006-2010). Approximately 1.86 million DLV bacterial culture-screened PCs and 0.21 million PI-treated PCs were issued with no reported septic fatalities nor cases of life-threatening sepsis. In Australia, two life-threatening septic transfusion reactions (1.923 per million) were reported out of almost 1.04 million ELV bacterial culture-screened PCs, and no septic fatalities were reported. Meanwhile, in Canada, four life-threatening septic transfusion reactions (3.6/million) and one fatality (0.9/million) were observed in about 1.11 million ESV bacterial culture-screened PCs.

Conclusion: DLV bacterial culture and PI treatment significantly reduced the incidence of septic reactions. The advantages and disadvantages of both systems merit further investigation before implementation.

References

Bloch E, Marshall C, Boyd J, Shifflett L, Tobian A, Gehrie E . Implementation of secondary bacterial culture testing of platelets to mitigate residual risk of septic transfusion reactions. Transfusion. 2018; 58(7):1647-1653. DOI: 10.1111/trf.14618. View

Williamson L . Using haemovigilance data to set blood safety priorities. Vox Sang. 2003; 83 Suppl 1:65-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1423-0410.2002.tb05270.x. View

Thyer J, Perkowska-Guse Z, Ismay S, Keller A, Chan H, Dennington P . Bacterial testing of platelets - has it prevented transfusion-transmitted bacterial infections in Australia?. Vox Sang. 2017; 113(1):13-20. DOI: 10.1111/vox.12561. View

Corash L . Bacterial contamination of platelet components: potential solutions to prevent transfusion-related sepsis. Expert Rev Hematol. 2011; 4(5):509-25. DOI: 10.1586/ehm.11.53. View

Getz T, Montgomery R, Bynum J, Aden J, Pidcoke H, Cap A . Storage of platelets at 4°C in platelet additive solutions prevents aggregate formation and preserves platelet functional responses. Transfusion. 2016; 56(6):1320-8. DOI: 10.1111/trf.13511. View

Benjamin R, Braschler T, Weingand T, Corash L . Hemovigilance monitoring of platelet septic reactions with effective bacterial protection systems. Transfusion. 2017; 57(12):2946-2957. DOI: 10.1111/trf.14284. View

McDonald C, Hartley S, Orchard K, Hughes G, Brett M, Hewitt P . Fatal Clostridium perfringens sepsis from a pooled platelet transfusion. Transfus Med. 1998; 8(1):19-22. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-3148.1998.00120.x. View

Bourbeau P, Riley J, Heiter B, Master R, Young C, Pierson C . Use of the BacT/Alert blood culture system for culture of sterile body fluids other than blood. J Clin Microbiol. 1998; 36(11):3273-7. PMC: 105314. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.36.11.3273-3277.1998. View

Eder A, Meena-Leist C, Hapip C, Dy B, Benjamin R, Wagner S . Clostridium perfringens in apheresis platelets: an unusual contaminant underscores the importance of clinical vigilance for septic transfusion reactions (CME). Transfusion. 2013; 54(3 Pt 2):857-62. DOI: 10.1111/trf.12282. View

10.

Hong H, Xiao W, Lazarus H, Good C, Maitta R, Jacobs M . Detection of septic transfusion reactions to platelet transfusions by active and passive surveillance. Blood. 2015; 127(4):496-502. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2015-07-655944. View

11.

Benjamin R . Transfusion-related sepsis: a silent epidemic. Blood. 2016; 127(4):380-1. DOI: 10.1182/blood-2015-12-685198. View

12.

Jenkins C, Ramirez-Arcos S, Goldman M, Devine D . Bacterial contamination in platelets: incremental improvements drive down but do not eliminate risk. Transfusion. 2011; 51(12):2555-65. DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03187.x. View

13.

Kou Y, Pagotto F, Hannach B, Ramirez-Arcos S . Fatal false-negative transfusion infection involving a buffy coat platelet pool contaminated with biofilm-positive Staphylococcus epidermidis: a case report. Transfusion. 2015; 55(10):2384-9. DOI: 10.1111/trf.13154. View

14.

Borosak M, Wood E . Bacterial Pre-Release Testing of Platelets - the Australian Red Cross Blood Service Clinical Experience. Transfus Med Hemother. 2011; 38(4):239-241. PMC: 3190219. DOI: 10.1159/000330466. View

15.

Wagner S, Benjamin R, Hapip C, Kaelber N, Turgeon A, Skripchenko A . Investigation of bacterial inactivation in apheresis platelets with 24 or 30 hours between inoculation and inactivation. Vox Sang. 2016; 111(3):226-234. DOI: 10.1111/vox.12410. View

16.

Dumont L, Kleinman S, Murphy J, Lippincott R, Schuyler R, Houghton J . Screening of single-donor apheresis platelets for bacterial contamination: the PASSPORT study results. Transfusion. 2009; 50(3):589-99. DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2009.02460.x. View

17.

Dumont L, Cancelas J, Dumont D, Siegel A, Szczepiorkowski Z, Rugg N . A randomized controlled trial evaluating recovery and survival of 6% dimethyl sulfoxide-frozen autologous platelets in healthy volunteers. Transfusion. 2012; 53(1):128-37. DOI: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2012.03735.x. View

18.

Stormer M, Vollmer T . Diagnostic methods for platelet bacteria screening: current status and developments. Transfus Med Hemother. 2014; 41(1):19-27. PMC: 3949613. DOI: 10.1159/000357651. View

19.

Ramirez-Arcos S, DiFranco C, McIntyre T, Goldman M . Residual risk of bacterial contamination of platelets: six years of experience with sterility testing. Transfusion. 2017; 57(9):2174-2181. DOI: 10.1111/trf.14202. View

20.

Benjamin R, McDonald C . The international experience of bacterial screen testing of platelet components with an automated microbial detection system: a need for consensus testing and reporting guidelines. Transfus Med Rev. 2014; 28(2):61-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.tmrv.2014.01.001. View