Mutual blood donation is safer at small blood collection stations in China. Issue 3 (December 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chen, Shang-Liang; Zhang, Xin; Chen, Zhi-Zhong; Wang, Wen-Jing; Li, Yan-Li; Li, Cheng-Yao; Chen, Zheng-Liang
• Is Part Of: Transfusion and apheresis science. Volume 53:Issue 3(2015)
• Page Start: 315
• Page End: 319
• Publication Date: 2015-12
• Subjects: Blood donor -- Blood safety -- Replacement donor -- Volunteer -- China; Blood -- Transfusion -- Periodicals; Hemapheresis -- Periodicals; 615.39
• DOI: 10.1016/j.transci.2015.05.023
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1473-0502

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The assumption that the level of safety of voluntary non-remunerated donors is significantly higher than that of family replacement donors is supported by global data without stratifying for first-time or repeat volunteer, or according to age, but the viral marker prevalence between replacement donors and first-time voluntary non-remunerated donors is similar. Materials and methods: From 2006 to 2013, replacement and voluntary donors were respectively recruited by the hospitals and the Center Blood Station in Zhaoqing, Guangdong, according to the existing procedures, and all the donors were screened for hepatitis B virus (HBV) surface antigen (HBsAg), antibodies against hepatitis C virus (anti-HCV), human immunodeficiency virus (anti-HIV) (1 + 2) and Treponema pallidum (anti-TP) by the enzyme immunoassays (EIAs), and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) in the Center Blood Station by kinetic analysis method. The risk factors related to blood safety were analyzed by Binary logistic regression analysis. Results: Between 252, 202 volunteers and 2771 replacement donors, the prevalences of ALT > 40 U/L and anti-HIV (4.88% and 0.01% vs 4.44% and 0.07%, respectively) were not significantly different. The prevalences of HBsAg, anti-HCV and anti-syphilis in replacement group were higher than those in voluntary group, which were related to donor's sex, age and donation time. Overall prevalence of serological markers was higher in male replacement donors than in female, and in replacement donor over 30 years than in those below 30 years, but the positive prevalence in repeated replacement donors was lower than that in first-time replacement donors. Conclusions: With appropriate intervention measures, such as pre-donor screening and other donor selection policy, replacement donors and voluntary donors provide a similar level of viral safety. Our donor selection policy in future should focus on retaining both young replacement and young voluntary donors as repeat donors and promoting the donation proportion of females, which will improve blood safety.