Exploring Adverse Blood Donation Reactions Among Whole Blood Donors at a Tertiary Hospital Setting: A One‐Center Observational Mixed‐Methods Study

Introduction: Blood donors (BDs), in most cases, tolerate the whole blood donation procedure well. However, occasionally adverse reactions (ARs) may occur. ARs often have a negative impact on donors return. Therefore, the staff of transfusion institutions must be educated and properly trained to recognize and take care of BDs who experience ARs before, during or after the procedure. The incidence of ARs is about 1,4%. Aim: To determine the frequency and severity of ARs that occurred among BDs on the territory of Vojvodina, analyze the age and profile of donors in whom they were recognized, indicate possible prevention of ARs. Material and methods: In a retrospective study, the records of ARs among whole BDs at the Blood Transfusion Institute Vojvodina, from January 1 2017, until December 31, 2021 were analyzed. Demographic data of the donors were obtained from the Institute's information system. The data were analyzed according to the time and manner of occurrence and the severity of ARs. Results: During the study period there were 194 425 blood donations. The ARs were identified in 2722 (1,4%) donations. The incidence was 14 in every 1000 donations. BDs who suffered ARs were 28,0 ± 8,3 years old, 1881 (69,1%) were male, 841 (30,9%) were female, while 1908 (70,1%) donated blood for the first time. In 2396 (88,03%) BDs vasovagal reaction occurred, 737 (27,08%) experienced nausea, 363 (13,33%) suffered syncope, 221 (8,13%) developed hyperventilation, 64 (2,34%) gained hematoma. Severe ARs in the form of collapse with convulsions were experienced by 12 (0.44%) donors. In multiple BDs, ARs were significantly less frequent (p<0,05). Conclusion: Although the number of donors with ARs in institution is low, it is necessary to monitor them, react promptly in case of their occurrence and minimize the risks of occurrence, primarily through education and preparation of donors for the whole blood donation procedure.

Objectives:Blood donation experience by most donors is satisfactory; however, a few may encounter adverse reactions. Healthy, altruistic, voluntary blood donors ensure adequate blood supply despite the potential risk of adverse reactions. Post-donation follow-up is crucial to get information about these adverse reactions. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency and type of adverse donor reactions and their correlation with contributory factors if any among the blood donors in a tertiary care oncology center.Material and Methods:It was a prospective observational study of 1000 consecutive voluntary whole blood donors who consented to participate in the study. Donors were followed up telephonically on two instances (first after 24 h of donation and second after 2 weeks of donation) and were asked a self-structured donor questionnaire to collect information regarding the adverse donor reactions if any. An appropriate statistical tool was used for analysis (IBM, SPSS software).Results:Of the 1000 voluntary whole blood donors, 92.6% (926/1000) responded to telephonic calls on both occasions. Of these 926, 8.5% (79/926) donors experienced adverse reactions. All these donors experienced immediate reactions, that is, within 24 h of donation while none reported fresh adverse reactions beyond 24 h–2 weeks. Of the 79 donors, 60% (49/79) experienced vasovagal reactions (VVR) and 40% (32/79) experienced hematoma including two donors who experienced both. A total of 86% (68/79) of reactions occurred in outdoor blood donation camps while 14% (11/79) occurred in-house (indoor). First time donors, female donors, and donors with weight on the lower side were more prone to immediate VVR (P< 0.05). Of the 49 VVR, 76% (37/49) were mild, 18% (9/49) were moderate, and 6% (3/49) were severe. Most of the hematomas, that is, 90% (29/32) occurred at outdoor blood donation camps while 10% (3/32) occurred indoor. Most hematomas (53%) took more than 7 days to recover.Conclusion:Post-donation interview proves to be an efficient tool to acquire information about adverse donor reactions. This will help in improving donor safety and satisfaction and will have a positive impact on the national blood supply by improving the donor return rate. Blood transfusion services (BTSs) staff must be trained to promptly identify the donor reactions onsite and manage them to enhance the donation experience of voluntary donors. Post-donation follow-up will aid in getting the donation experience and BTS can develop strategies to enhance it. This will also help in donor hemovigilance in the future for the betterment of donor safety.

Background Adverse donor reactions of variable severity occur during blood donation. This may have a negative impact on donor retention and donor return. The present study aims to analyse the donor reactions in a group of voluntary blood donors who belong to medical fraternity. The knowledge about various donor reactions helps us to take necessary preventive measures.Materials and methods This is a cross sectional study on donor reactions conducted during a voluntary blood donation camp by medical students and doctors. All the donors were observed for adverse reactions during and for a period of 30 minutes after donation and the data regarding adverse reactions were recorded and analysed.Results A total of 37 medical students donated blood. 2464.86 were males and 1335.14 were females. Nine 24.32 donors developed adverse donor reactions out of which 7 77.78 were first time donors.Conclusion The prevalence of adverse donor reactions was high even though all the donors were medical students and doctors with prior knowledge about blood donation. Counselling of blood donors prior to donation about the adverse reactions along with incorporation of preventive measures can minimise the donor reactions.nbsp

Fragmented blood transfusion services along with an unmotivated blood donation culture often leads to blood shortage. Donor retention is crucial to meet the increasing blood demand, and adverse donor reactions have a negative impact on donor return. The aim of this study was to estimate adverse donor reactions and identify any demographic association. . We conducted a prospective study between January 2011 and December 2013. A total of 41,759 healthy donors were enrolled. Professionally trained donor attendants drew blood and all donors were observed during and following donation for possible adverse events for 20 minutes. Blood donors were asked to report if they suffered from any delayed adverse consequences. . Out of 41,759 blood donors, 537 (1.3%) experienced adverse reactions. The incidence was one in every 78 donations. The mean age of donors who experienced adverse events was 26.0±6.8 years, and all were male. Out of 537 donors, 429 (80%) developed vasovagal reaction (VVR), 133 (25%) had nausea, 63 (12%) fainted, 35 (6%) developed hyperventilation, 9 (2%) had delayed syncope, and 9 (2%) developed hematoma. Arterial prick, nerve injury, cardiac arrest, and seizures were not observed. Donors aged less than < 30 years and weighing < 70 kg were significantly associated with VVR, hyperventilation, and nausea (p < 0.005). Undergraduates and Urdu speaking donors also had a significant association with fainting and nausea, respectively (p < 0.05). . The prevalence of adverse events was low at our tertiary center. A VVR was the predominant adverse reaction and was associated with age and weight. Our study highlights the importance of these parameters in the donation process. A well-trained and experienced phlebotomist and pre-evaluation counseling of blood donors could further minimize the adverse reactions.

Blood and apheresis donations are widely considered to be safe with a low incidence of adverse reactions and injuries; however, data reported in the medical literature on the prevalence of adverse events in donors and studies on the predictive risk factors for donor reactions are limited and contradictory. From January 2002 to December 2006 we recorded every adverse reaction verified during 240,596 consecutive blood and apheresis donations (183,855 homologous whole blood donations, 6,669 autologous whole blood donations, 38,647 plasmapheresis, 2,641 plateletpheresis and 8,784 multicomponent donations) at the Italian Transfusion Centres of Verona and Ragusa,. Using a special, pre-arranged form within the quality system, a total of 686 adverse reactions (related to 0.28% of all donations) were recorded. Vasovagal reactions, mostly of mild intensity, were the most commonly observed adverse reactions, with a frequency of 0.20% (487/ 240,596). The frequency of the vasovagal reactions varied according to the different types of donation, being 0.19% (346/183,855) for homologous whole blood donations, 0.24% (16/6,669) for autologous whole blood donations, 0.16% (63/38,647) for plasmapheresis, 0.68% (18/2,641) for plateletpheresis and 0.49 (43/8,784) for multicomponent donations. Citrate toxicity was reported in 0.38% (189/50,072) of apheresis donations. Severe adverse reactions were very rare, as they occurred in 0.004% of the donations (10/240,596). In conclusion, the results of our 5-year survey document that apheresis and blood donation are safe procedures for the donor with a low incidence of adverse reactions; the adverse reactions that did occur were mostly mild and resolved rapidly.

Background: Voluntary donors normally tolerate blood donation very well, but, occasionally, adverse reactions of variable severity may occur during or at the end of the collection. The occurrence of adverse reactions to blood donation significantly hampers donor retention and negatively impacts on the universal availability of adequate numbers of blood donor units. &#x0D; Objective: To analyze the spectrum and prevalence of adverse reactions in blood donors in a tertiary care hospital-based blood bank in SSG Hospital, Vadodara. &#x0D; Materials and Methods: The details of blood donors who presented for donation from January 2107 to April 2019 period were retrieved from the departmental archives for analysis. These included type of donor, type and frequency of adverse reactions to blood donation.&#x0D; Results: The prevalence of adverse reactions to blood donation was (315/35027) 0.9%; this occurred more frequently in first time donors compared to repeat blood donors. Presyncopal reactions were the most frequent adverse reaction encountered among the donors 52.38% (165/315).&#x0D; Conclusion: Presyncopal reactions are common adverse reactions in our blood donor set; this has implications on transfusion safety and blood donor retention.&#x0D; Keywords: Presyncopal reactions, adverse donor reactions, blood donor

Aim: The aim of this study was to analyze the frequency of on-site and off-site adverse donor reactions and its correlation with contributory factors if any. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted from October 2016 to November 2016. A total of 1000 voluntary whole blood (WB) donors who consented to participate in the study were contacted telephonically the next day of donation. Donors were asked a structured questionnaire and information was documented. Results: Of the 1000 voluntary WB donors, 948 responded to the phone calls. Of these 948, 79 (8.33%) donors experienced adverse reactions. Of the 79 donors, 33% (26/79) reactions occurred on-site, whereas 67% (53/79) reactions occurred off-site (P

Individuals with epilepsy or seizure disorders are restricted from donating blood because of concern that they are prone to adverse donor reactions such as syncope and convulsions. A study evaluating whether that concern is warranted is reported. During a 2-year period beginning in 1987, blood donors in Maryland with a history of seizures were actively recruited by the American Red Cross. Adverse donor reactions were classified as "slight", indicating dizziness and nausea without loss of consciousness; "moderate," denoting syncope; and "severe," indicating convulsive syncope. There were 329,143 satisfactory blood donations; 613 individuals reporting a history of seizures donated blood a total of 723 times. Among donors with seizures, 186 (35.7%) were taking antiepileptic medication, and 61 (8.4%) had had one or more seizures in the preceding year. Individuals with seizures had a low incidence of adverse reactions (3.34%). Although this incidence was slightly higher than that in the entire population (2.24%), the difference was not significant. In particular, the risk of syncope with or without convulsive activity was low for people with seizures (0.21%) and not significantly greater than that in other donors (0.28%). Individuals with seizures or epilepsy are not at greater risk for adverse reactions after blood donation, and major restrictions on their participation as blood donors are not warranted.

Prevalence and factors associated with vasovagal reaction among whole blood donors in hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Introduction: Blood is one of the unique and precious gift that one person can give to another person. Most donors tolerate blood donation well, but sometimes donors can develop adverse reactions. Aim: To analyse the pattern of donor adverse reactions in blood donation in a tertiary care hospital in Bangalore, India. Materials and Methods: It was an ambispective cross- sectional study. Donors who developed adverse reactions over a period of three years from January 2018 to December 2020 (January 2018 to December 2019- retrospective and January 2020 to December 2020- prospective) in a tertiary care hospital in Bangalore were studied. The parameters analysed were the type of adverse reaction (systemic and local), the reaction in first-time donors or repeated donors, and the gender of the donor. Stata 2016 version was used in the analysis of data. Adverse Donor Reaction (ADR) is reported as a percentage and 95% confidence interval. The percentage of ADR in males and females was compared using the Chi-square test. Results: The population studied consisted of 37,007 whole blood donors, with 35347 (95.51%) males and 1660 (4.48%) females. Among 37,007 donors, 316 donors 316/37007 (0.85%) had adverse reactions out of which, 287 were males and 29 females. There were 238 first-time donors and 78 repeat donors. The Vasovagal Reaction (VVR) was the most common 307 donors (97.15%) systemic ADR seen. Local reactions were seen in 9 donors (2.84%). Conclusion: The number of donors who developed ADRs was low still it is desirable to reduce risks. The ADRs can be reduced by diligently following the screening protocols and carrying out the venipuncture precisely.

Introduction: Blood Donors are the backbone of a Blood Transfusion service.Since blood donors are considerate volunteers, they should be encouraged , motivated and should be safe without any adverse reactions. As the quote says , people who have not donated have never been asked for .Post donation well being and donors being fine fettle will definitely have implications on blood donor return rate .voluntary repeat donations should be encouraged. If the donors are ensured of a pleasant experience, they will be motivated to become regular repeat donors. This can be accomplished by preventing adverse reactions during and post donation. Objectives: 1.To study the frequency of occurrence of adverse reactions in voluntary whole blood donors. 2. To evaluate the efficacy of pre dontion hydration and muscle tensing exercises in preventing Adverse donar reactions 3. To look for associated factors like age, sex,mental status in the causation of donor adverse reactions Methodology: Study duration : 3 months . Total of 800 donors will be included in the present study , of which 200 will in the standard group and 600 ( 200 each) in intervention group. Randomly donors were assigned to one of four groups: 1) standard donation, 2) Leg exercise prior to Donation (venipuncture/Phlebotomy) 3) Pre-donation water (500 ml of bottled water consumed 20 to 30 minutes before donation), 4) Pre-donation water combined with leg exercise during donation Statistical analysis: Analysis :using SPSS 19.0 software. All data will be entered in Excel and further analysed. Results : There was significant reduction in the VVR in group 3 and 4 when compared to group 1 and 2.Anxiety was more in group 1 and 2.we found that pre donation exercise was not acceptable/ tolerated by many donors and they became more restless / showed anxiety when compared to group 3 .there was no much difference between group 3 and group 4 with respect to VVR.Pre donation hydration and muscle exercise were associated with significantly lower VVR. Implications : Pre Donation Hydration ( 500 ml of water 15 to 20 minute before donating) and leg exercises will help reduce vasovagal reactions specially in Novice donors, thus adding them to the Donor Pool. Hilights : Pre donation Hydration and Muscle tensing exercise to reduce the Adverse donor reactions Increase the Donor Pool Key words : Predonation Hydration, Muscle tensing exercise, donor adverse reaction.

The impact of immediate adverse donation reactions on the return of volunteers undergoing platelet apheresis

Controversy exists regarding the safety of the different types of platelet (PLT) concentrates. This study was aimed at comparing the rate of adverse reactions associated with apheresis PLT concentrates (APCs) and pooled PLT concentrates (PPCs) both in donors and in recipients. From the French national hemovigilance system, types and numbers of recipient adverse reactions were compared over a period from 2009 to 2011. Donor adverse reactions were available for 2010 and 2011. This study involved 23 of 26 French regions. Main outcomes were the rates of adverse reaction in recipients and serious adverse reaction in donors. There were 790,854 PLT transfusions during the study period (477,747 [60%] with APCs, 313,107 [40%] with PPCs). APCs were associated with more adverse reactions (6244 vs. 2469 per 1,000,000, p < 0.001) and more severe and life-threatening reactions (respectively, 241 vs. 131 per 1,000,000, p < 0.001; and 182 vs. 121 per 1,000,000, p = 0.04). Mortality rates due to an adverse transfusion reaction were similar (15 vs. 6 per 1,000,000, p = 0.5). In donors, the number of whole blood (WB) donations was 4,722,685 whereas 266,095 apheresis procedures were performed. Serious adverse reactions were more frequent for apheresis procedures than for WB donations (5445 vs. 803 per 1,000,000, p < 0.001). Our findings suggest that apheresis PLTs may be more hazardous than pooled PLTs both in recipients and in donors. This study calls for randomized trials to confirm or refute these results.

Hemovigilance of blood donors is an integral part of blood transfusion system, conferring to lessen the blood donation complications and enhancing the safety of blood donors. Objective: To determine the prevalence, severity, and associated factors of acute hemovigilance reactions in the blood donors of public sector tertiary care hospital bank banks in Peshawar. Methods: A multi-centered, cross-sectional approach was applied on blood donors` population selected via random proportionate sampling, visiting 6 Public sector tertiary care hospitals in Peshawar. Adverse reactions were reported on national guidelines reporting form during and after the blood donation. Results: Out of 420 blood donors selected via random proportionate sampling of total blood donors` population, prevalence of acute adverse hemovigilance reaction was 8.57% while no adverse reactions occurred in 91.43% of the blood donors. The most frequent hemovigilance reaction was vasovagal reactions (5.2%). All the reactions were of mild to moderate severity with no life threatening hemovigilance reactions. Conclusions: The overall prevalence rate was 8.57% of all healthy blood donors` which strengthens the fact that adverse reactions are avoidable complication of blood donations among the voluntary and replacement blood donors, and can be prevented with centralized hemovigilance data base for a sustainable base of voluntary blood donors.

The widespread utilization of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic has been crucial for reducing transmission risk among healthcare workers (HCWs) and the public. However, the extensive use of PPEhas brought about potential adverse reactions, particularly among HCWs. This study aims to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of adverse skin reactions associated with PPE use among different categories of HCWs, including faculty, residents, and nursing officers (NOs), in a dedicated tertiary care COVID-19 hospital. The study design was a hospital-based cross-sectional analytical study conducted over one month, involving a total of 240 participants. The participants were required to complete a pre-tested semi-structured questionnaire that covered demographic information, PPE-related data, preventive measures, observed reactions, and self-management strategies. Results indicated that adverse skin reactions were common among HCWs, with reactions reported by all participants. The most commonly used PPE included N95 masks, goggles, gloves, face shields, isolation gowns, and medical protective clothing. Excessive sweating (60% residents, 21.1% NOs, and 16.25% faculties), facial rash, dry palms (>70% of HCWs), and itching were among the most prevalent adverse reactions. Urticarial lesions (28.5% among NOs), pressure marks and pain (100% on the cheek among all HCWs), fungal infections (18.5% among residents at the web space of fingers), and skin breakdown were also reported. Factors such as age, gender, pre-existing skin problems, and oily/acne-prone skin history were found to be significantly associated with adverse skin reactions. In conclusion, the findings highlight the common adverse reactions reported by HCWs during the use of different PPEs. Certain steps taken by HCWs for the prevention of adverse reactions due to PPE emphasize the importance of tailored preventive measures and strategies to mitigate these adverse reactions, such as proper PPE selection, well-fitting equipment, regular breaks, and appropriate skincare practices. These insights contribute to the development of guidelines for optimal PPE usage and support the well-being of HCWs in their essential roles.