Explore the vast range of titles available.

The establishment of systems to ensure that all donated blood is screened for transfusion-transmissible infections is a core component of every national blood program. Globally, however, there are significant variations in the extent to which donated blood is screened, the screening strategies adopted and the overall quality and effectiveness of the blood screening process. As a result, in many countries the recipients of blood and blood products remain at unacceptable risk of acquiring life-threatening infections that could easily be prevented.These recommendations are designed to support countries in establishing effective national programs to ensure 100% quality-assured screening of donated blood for transfusion-transmissible infections. In countries where systems are not yet fully in place, the recommendations will be helpful in instituting a step-wise process to implement them.

A sharp-eyed expose of the deadly politics, murderous plots, and cutthroat rivalries behind the first blood transfusions in seventeenth-century Europe.

In patients with myocardial infarction and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy led to fewer deaths and heart attacks than a restricted transfusion strategy, but the difference was of borderline significance.

Blood transfusion is one of the most common procedures in patients in hospital so it is imperative that clinicians are knowledgeable about appropriate blood product administration, as well as the signs, symptoms, and management of transfusion reactions. In this Review, we, an international panel, provide a synopsis of the pathophysiology, treatment, and management of each diagnostic category of transfusion reaction using evidence-based recommendations whenever available.

Harpham recounts her story of fear and ultimate gratitude when--while separated from her polar-opposite husband--she gives birth of a girl with a serious illness.

Platelet transfusions carry greater risks of infection, sepsis, and death than any other blood product, owing primarily to bacterial contamination. Many patients may be at particular risk, including critically ill patients in the intensive care unit. This narrative review provides an overview of the problem and an update on strategies for the prevention, detection, and reduction/inactivation of bacterial contaminants in platelets. Bacterial contamination and septic transfusion reactions are major sources of morbidity and mortality. Between 1:1000 and 1:2500 platelet units are bacterially contaminated. The skin bacterial microflora is a primary source of contamination, and enteric contaminants are rare but may be clinically devastating, while platelet storage conditions can support bacterial growth. Donor selection, blood diversion, and hemovigilance are effective but have limitations. Biofilm-producing species can adhere to biological and non-biological surfaces and evade detection. Primary bacterial culture testing of apheresis platelets is in routine use in the US. Pathogen reduction/inactivation technologies compatible with platelets use ultraviolet light-based mechanisms to target nucleic acids of contaminating bacteria and other pathogens. These methods have demonstrated safety and efficacy and represent a proactive approach for inactivating contaminants before transfusion to prevent transfusion-transmitted infections. One system, which combines ultraviolet A and amotosalen for broad-spectrum pathogen inactivation, is approved in both the US and Europe. Current US Food and Drug Administration recommendations advocate enhanced bacterial testing or pathogen reduction/inactivation strategies (or both) to further improve platelet safety. Risks of bacterial contamination of platelets and transfusion-transmitted infections have been significantly mitigated, but not eliminated, by improvements in prevention and detection strategies. Regulatory-approved technologies for pathogen reduction/inactivation have further enhanced the safety of platelet transfusions. Ongoing development of these technologies holds great promise.

Objective To compare the benefit and harm of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies to guide red blood cell transfusions.Design Systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials.Data sources Cochrane central register of controlled trials, SilverPlatter Medline (1950 to date), SilverPlatter Embase (1980 to date), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to present). Reference lists of identified trials and other systematic reviews were assessed, and authors and experts in transfusion were contacted to identify additional trials.Trial selection Published and unpublished randomised clinical trials that evaluated a restrictive compared with a liberal transfusion strategy in adults or children, irrespective of language, blinding procedure, publication status, or sample size.Data extraction Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts of trials identified, and relevant trials were evaluated in full text for eligibility. Two reviewers then independently extracted data on methods, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias from included trials. random effects models were used to estimate risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals.Results 31 trials totalling 9813 randomised patients were included. The proportion of patients receiving red blood cells (relative risk 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.47 to 0.63, 8923 patients, 24 trials) and the number of red blood cell units transfused (mean difference −1.43, 95% confidence interval −2.01 to −0.86) were lower with the restrictive compared with liberal transfusion strategies. Restrictive compared with liberal transfusion strategies were not associated with risk of death (0.86, 0.74 to 1.01, 5707 patients, nine lower risk of bias trials), overall morbidity (0.98, 0.85 to 1.12, 4517 patients, six lower risk of bias trials), or fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction (1.28, 0.66 to 2.49, 4730 patients, seven lower risk of bias trials). Results were not affected by the inclusion of trials with unclear or high risk of bias. Using trial sequential analyses on mortality and myocardial infarction, the required information size was not reached, but a 15% relative risk reduction or increase in overall morbidity with restrictive transfusion strategies could be excluded.Conclusions Compared with liberal strategies, restrictive transfusion strategies were associated with a reduction in the number of red blood cell units transfused and number of patients being transfused, but mortality, overall morbidity, and myocardial infarction seemed to be unaltered. Restrictive transfusion strategies are safe in most clinical settings. Liberal transfusion strategies have not been shown to convey any benefit to patients.Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42013004272.

Recent progress has been made in the identification and implementation of best transfusion practices on the basis of evidence-based clinical trials, published clinical practice guidelines, and process improvements for blood use and clinical patient outcomes. However, substantial variability persists in transfusion outcomes for patients in some clinical settings—eg, patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery. This variability could be the result of insufficient understanding of published guidelines; different recommendations of medical societies, including the specification of a haemoglobin concentration threshold to use as a transfusion trigger; the value of haemoglobin as a surrogate indicator for transfusion benefit, even though only changes in concentration and not absolute red cell mass of haemoglobin can be identified; and disagreement about the validity of the level 1 evidence for clinical practice guidelines. Nevertheless, institutional experience and national databases suggest that a restrictive blood transfusion approach is being increasingly implemented as best practice.