ArticleBlood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue2016
Adverse events and retention of donors of double red cell units by apheresis.
Article in Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Red Blood Cell Depletion in Patients With Hyperferritinemia: Comparison of Two Apheresis Systems.Journal of clinical apheresis · 2026Article
- Blood donation for iron removal in individuals with HFE mutations: study of efficacy and safety and short review on hemochromatosis and blood donation.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Long-Term Course of Haemoglobin and Ferritin Values in High-Frequency Donors of Whole Blood and Double Erythrocyte Apheresis.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSafety of double-erythrocyte (2RBC) collection and reasons for ceasing 2RBC donation were retrospectively analysed in the blood donor population of Basel, Switzerland.
methodsDonors with at least 1 2RBC apheresis were included in the study. Minimal requirements were Hb ≥140 g/L and body weight ≥70 kg; serum ferritin (SF) values were measured routinely, but were not part of the selection criteria. 2RBC collections were performed with ALYX devices at 6-month intervals. Adverse events (AEs) were systematically recorded and classified according to the ISBT EHN 2008 criteria. Data of procedures were retrieved from the ALYX software. Demographics, apheresis data and AEs were analysed with descriptive statistics.
resultsData of 4,377 2RBC aphereses performed in 793 donors (779 males) between 1(st) January 2003 and 31(st) May 2015 were evaluated. Mean donor age at first 2RBC donation was 44 years (standard deviation [SD] 21), median number of donations was 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 8); 32% of the donors underwent a single procedure. There were 161 AEs, mostly local haematomas (55%) and vasovagal reactions (20%); fatigue was reported in 6% of the cases and was more frequent than citrate toxicity. Two severe AEs were observed. The most frequent reasons for abandoning 2RBC donation were low SF levels and donor choice (both 11%), but most donors simply did not reply to invitations (16%). Overall, procedure-related causes (AEs, low SF levels, no time for apheresis, inadequate venous access) were observed in 14% of the cases. At the end of the observation period, 40% of the donors were still active blood donors, but only 20% were donating 2RBC. DISCUSSION: 2RBC donation is overall safe. Donor retention was low over a period of 11 years. An important reason for abandoning 2RBC was the detection of low SF levels. The impact of fatigue on donor retention and the course of iron stores after repeated 6-monthly 2RBC apheresis require further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.