ArticleTransfusion2026
Building evidence for transfusion practice: A pilot study on bacterial adhesion and growth in red blood cell infusion sets.
Article in Transfusion, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBlood administration sets are changed after a prescribed time interval with variations in guidelines. In Canada, sets are changed every 4 h based on the theory of potential bacterial attachment. This study aimed to investigate whether bacteria adhere to the inner surfaces of blood administration sets during mimicked transfusions of red blood cell concentrates (RBCCs). STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsSerratia marcescens was used to test bacterial adhesion on a Primary PLUM Y-type Blood Set. Study phases (N ≥ 3): (i) RBCCs spiked with 10 CFU/mL and bacterial recovery after 4 h; (ii) and (iii) RBCCs spiked with 1 CFU/mL and bacterial recovery after 2 h (ii) and after 2 h and 24 h (iii); (iv) RBCCs inoculated with 0.1 CFU/mL and bacterial detection at 2-24 h. Bacterial adhesion was verified with dislodging, cultures, and scanning electron microscopy after completion of mimicked RBCC transfusions.
resultsAt 10 CFU/mL, S. marcescens was recovered in one of three assays; however, at 1 CFU/mL, bacterial recovery after 2 h was minimal (one of six assays), although proliferation at 24 h was significant. With initial loads of 0.1 CFU/mL, bacteria were only detected at 8 and 24 h, and in the filter, in one of five trials.
conclusionThis pilot report provides evidence of bacterial growth in transfusion sets. Data obtained with S. marcescens indicate that the use of blood administration sets could be extended from 4 to ≥6 h after the infusion of the first RBCC with no impact on patient safety. These findings align with existing guidelines endorsing a longer interval between changes of blood product administration sets.
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.