Stephen R C Howie1. 1. Bacterial Diseases Programme, Medical Research Council Laboratories, Banjul, Gambia. showie@mrc.gm
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine paediatric blood sample volume limits that are consistent with physiological "minimal risk." METHODS: A literature review was performed to search for evidence concerning the adverse effects of blood sampling in children and for guidelines on sampling volume in paediatric research. The search included Medline, EMBASE, other web-based and non-web-based sources and the bibliographies of the sources identified. Experts were also consulted. FINDINGS: Five studies and nine guidelines were identified. Existing guidelines specify paediatric blood sample volume limits ranging from 1% to 5% of total blood volume (TBV) over 24 hours and up to 10% of TBV over 8 weeks. The evidence available is limited and includes findings from non-randomized studies showing a minimal risk with one-off sampling of up to 5% of TBV. CONCLUSION: The evidence available is consistent with the conclusion that all identified guidelines are within the limits of "minimal risk." However, more and better evidence is required to draw firmer conclusions. Researchers and institutional review boards need to take into account the total sampling volume needed for both clinical care and research rather than for each alone. The child's general state of health should be considered and extra caution should be observed particularly with children whose illness can deplete blood volume or haemoglobin or hinder their replenishment. Local policies must also address the appropriateness and local acceptability of collection procedures and of the blood volumes drawn.
OBJECTIVE: To determine paediatric blood sample volume limits that are consistent with physiological "minimal risk." METHODS: A literature review was performed to search for evidence concerning the adverse effects of blood sampling in children and for guidelines on sampling volume in paediatric research. The search included Medline, EMBASE, other web-based and non-web-based sources and the bibliographies of the sources identified. Experts were also consulted. FINDINGS: Five studies and nine guidelines were identified. Existing guidelines specify paediatric blood sample volume limits ranging from 1% to 5% of total blood volume (TBV) over 24 hours and up to 10% of TBV over 8 weeks. The evidence available is limited and includes findings from non-randomized studies showing a minimal risk with one-off sampling of up to 5% of TBV. CONCLUSION: The evidence available is consistent with the conclusion that all identified guidelines are within the limits of "minimal risk." However, more and better evidence is required to draw firmer conclusions. Researchers and institutional review boards need to take into account the total sampling volume needed for both clinical care and research rather than for each alone. The child's general state of health should be considered and extra caution should be observed particularly with children whose illness can deplete blood volume or haemoglobin or hinder their replenishment. Local policies must also address the appropriateness and local acceptability of collection procedures and of the blood volumes drawn.
Authors: Brenda E S Gibson; Audrey Todd; Irene Roberts; Derwood Pamphilon; Charles Rodeck; Paula Bolton-Maggs; Geoff Burbin; J Duguid; F Boulton; H Cohen; N Smith; D B L McClelland; M Rowley; G Turner Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Michael Cole; Alan V Boddy; Pamela Kearns; Kok H Teh; Lisa Price; Annie Parry; Andrew D J Pearson; Gareth J Veal Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: K E A Hack; C M Khodabux; J S von Lindern; H A A Brouwers; S A Scherjon; H J M van Rijn; J A van Hilten; A Brand; G C M L Page-Christiaens Journal: Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd Date: 2008-06-21
Authors: Elizabeta Nemeth; Seth Rivera; Victoria Gabayan; Charlotte Keller; Sarah Taudorf; Bente K Pedersen; Tomas Ganz Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Brian R Stolze; Verena Gounden; Jianghong Gu; Elizabeth A Elliott; Likhona S Masika; Brent S Abel; Deborah P Merke; Monica C Skarulis; Steven J Soldin Journal: J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol Date: 2015-12-22 Impact factor: 4.292
Authors: Cynthia Tyburczy; Margaret E Brenna; Joseph A DeMari; Kumar S D Kothapalli; Bryant S Blank; Helen Valentine; Sean P McDonough; Dattatreya Banavara; Deborah A Diersen-Schade; J Thomas Brenna Journal: Food Chem Toxicol Date: 2011-06-21 Impact factor: 6.023
Authors: Olubukola T Idoko; Sonali Kochhar; Tsiri E Agbenyega; Bernhards Ogutu; Martin O C Ota Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Andrea J Sant; Anthony T DiPiazza; Jennifer L Nayak; Ajitanuj Rattan; Katherine A Richards Journal: Immunol Rev Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 12.988
Authors: Madhu Page-Sharp; Troy Nunn; Sam Salman; Brioni R Moore; Kevin T Batty; Timothy M E Davis; Laurens Manning Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2015-10-05 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Jouha Min; Maria Nothing; Ben Coble; Hui Zheng; Jongmin Park; Hyungsoon Im; Georg F Weber; Cesar M Castro; Filip K Swirski; Ralph Weissleder; Hakho Lee Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Michael D Cabana; Susan J Kunselman; Sharmilee M Nyenhuis; Michael E Wechsler Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: R Mark Payne; Kristin M Burns; Andrew C Glatz; Danshi Li; Xiaodong Li; Paul Monagle; Jane W Newburger; Elizabeth A Swan; Olivia Wheaton; Christoph Male Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 4.749