Strategies for the avoidance of bacterial contamination of blood components

Strategies for the avoidance of bacterial contamination of blood components Gram staining and bacterial culturing methods were used to determine the incidence of bacterial contamination of cellular blood components at the time of transfusion reactions. Over a 5‐year period, 2208 (4.3%) of 51,278 transfusions were complicated by reactions. Overall bacterial contamination occurred in 5 (0.03%) of 17,928 transfusions of single‐ donor apheresis platelets, 1 (0.14%) of 712 transfusions of pooled random‐donor platelet concentrates, 1 (0.003%) of 31,385 transfusions of red cells, and 0 of 1253 transfusions of fresh‐frozen plasma. Gram staining done at the time of positive cultures was positive in three of six cases. Although six of seven recipients of contaminated components suffered no clinical sequelae, contaminated transfusions may have been a contributing cause of death in one case. Attempts were made to avoid the transfusion of contaminated cellular blood components by performing routine bacterial cultures: 0 of 341 quality control cultures were positive. To avoid the transfusion of contaminated platelets by identifying bacteria, Gram staining was performed in all single‐donor apheresis platelet units collected on open systems and daily in platelets stored > 48 hours: 8 (0.15%) of 5334 smears done on 3829 platelet units were interpreted as positive, and those units were not transfused, but only two of eight units were culture positive. These studies suggest that bacterial contamination can result in adverse clinical sequelae in transfusion recipients and that both culturing and Gram staining are poor methods of screening for contaminated units. More sensitive and specific methods of generalized screening for bacterial contamination are needed. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Transfusion Wiley

Strategies for the avoidance of bacterial contamination of blood components

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/strategies-for-the-avoidance-of-bacterial-contamination-of-blood-xnw09dlxQt
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Gram staining and bacterial culturing methods were used to determine the incidence of bacterial contamination of cellular blood components at the time of transfusion reactions. Over a 5‐year period, 2208 (4.3%) of 51,278 transfusions were complicated by reactions. Overall bacterial contamination occurred in 5 (0.03%) of 17,928 transfusions of single‐ donor apheresis platelets, 1 (0.14%) of 712 transfusions of pooled random‐donor platelet concentrates, 1 (0.003%) of 31,385 transfusions of red cells, and 0 of 1253 transfusions of fresh‐frozen plasma. Gram staining done at the time of positive cultures was positive in three of six cases. Although six of seven recipients of contaminated components suffered no clinical sequelae, contaminated transfusions may have been a contributing cause of death in one case. Attempts were made to avoid the transfusion of contaminated cellular blood components by performing routine bacterial cultures: 0 of 341 quality control cultures were positive. To avoid the transfusion of contaminated platelets by identifying bacteria, Gram staining was performed in all single‐donor apheresis platelet units collected on open systems and daily in platelets stored > 48 hours: 8 (0.15%) of 5334 smears done on 3829 platelet units were interpreted as positive, and those units were not transfused, but only two of eight units were culture positive. These studies suggest that bacterial contamination can result in adverse clinical sequelae in transfusion recipients and that both culturing and Gram staining are poor methods of screening for contaminated units. More sensitive and specific methods of generalized screening for bacterial contamination are needed.

Journal

TransfusionWiley

Published: Mar 1, 1993

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off