DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2349-3933.ijam20210604

Retrospective analysis of the most common cause of rejection of donors for blood donation

Garima Vijayvergiya, Parag Fulzele, Naveen Vairyamoorthy

Abstract


Background: A significant imbalance in access to safe blood is seen between the developing and developed countries. Donor selection has a pivotal role in preventing transfusion related complications and provide safety to the recipients. In this study, we aimed to find out rate and causes of blood donor rejection in our hospital.  

Methods: A retrospective study conducted in a tertiary care hospital involving both the voluntary and replacement donors during the period September 2017 to December 2018. We included all those donors who were considered unfit for blood donation. All those who came for blood donation at our hospital were asked to fill up an enrolment form for a blood donor. A general and systemic examination were done. We calculated the rejection rate, listed the reasons for donor rejection, and analyzed the data.

Results: Among 150 rejected blood donors, most were males [129 (86%)], and the rest were females [21 (14%)]. The rejection rate in our study was 3.29%. We found that the rejection rate of donors was different among voluntary and replacement donors. It showed that the most common reason for the temporary rejection of blood donation was low hemoglobin level, followed by abnormal blood pressure.  

Conclusions: A vast majority of donors were rejected temporarily [132 (88%)], while the rest of them were rejected permanently [18 (12%)]. Low Hb in females and abnormal blood pressure in males were the commonest causes of blood donor rejection. Many factors affect the similarities and variations between the most typical causes of blood donor rejection, such as geographical area, cultural, socio-economic, and educational factors.  


Keywords


Blood donor, Rejection, Low haemoglobin, Blood pressure, Eligibility criteria

Full Text:

PDF

References


Tariq S, Tariq S, Jawed S, Tariq S. Knowledge and attitude of blood donation among female medical students in Faisalabad. J Pak Med Assoc. 2018;68(1):65–70.

Department of Essential Health Technologies Blood Transfusion Safety Unit. Universal Access to Safe Blood Transfusion. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.

Blood safety and availability, World Health Organization. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blood-safety-and-availability. Accessed on 13 November 2020]

Global status report on blood safety and availability 2016. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.

World Health Organization. Blood Donor Selection: Guidelines on Assessing Donor Suitability for Blood Donation. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012:16–23.

Gillet P, Neijens E. An original approach to evaluating the quality of blood donor selection: checking donor questionnaires and analyzing donor deferral rate. Front Med. 2018;5:74.

Katz L, Strong DM, Tegtmeier G, Stramer S. Performance of an algorithm for the reentry of volunteer blood donors deferred due to falsepositive test results for antibody to hepatitis B core antigen. Transfusion. 2008;48(11):2315–22.

Winwanitkit V. Knowledge about blood donations among a sample of the Thai University students. Vox Sang 2002;89:97-9.

MacAskill SG, Hastings GB, McNeill RE, Gillon J. The Scottish attitudes to blood donation and ADIS. Bio Med J. 1989;298:1012-4.

Naveen Agnihotri, “Whole Blood Donor deferral analysis at a center in western India”, Asian Journal of Transfusion Science”, July 2010;4(2):116-22.

Reikvam H, Svendheim KJ, Anna. S. Rosvik, Questionnaire related deferral in regular blood donors in Norway. J Blood Transfus. 2012.

Bastos ML, Tavaziva G, Abidi SK, Campbell JR, Haraoui LP, Johnston JC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bio Med J. 2020;370.

Custer B, Schlumpf KS, Wright D, Simon TL, Wilkinson S, Ness PM, NHLBI Retrovirus Epidemiology Donor Study‐II. Donor return after temporary deferral. Transfusion. 2011;51(6):1188-96.