BACKGROUND: Confidential unit exclusion remains a controversial strategy to reduce the residual risk of transfusion-transmitted infections. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze confidential unit exclusion from its development in a large institution in light of confidential donation confirmation. METHODS: Data of individuals who donated from October 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009 were analyzed in a case-control study. The serological results and sociodemographic characteristics of donors who did not confirm their donations were compared to those who did. Variables with p-values < 0.20 in univariate analysis were included in a logistic multivariate analysis. RESULTS: In the univariate analysis there was a statically significant association between positive serological results and response to confidential donation confirmation of "No". Donation type, (firsttime or return donor - OR 1.69, CI 1.37-2.09), gender (OR 1.66, CI 1.35-2.04), education level (OR 2.82, CI 2.30-3.47) and ethnic background (OR 0.67, CI 0.55-0.82) were included in the final logistic regression model. In all logistic regression models analyzed, the serological suitability and confidential donation confirmation were not found to be statistically associated. The adoption of new measures of clinical classification such as audiovisual touch-screen computer-assisted self-administered interviews might be more effective than confidential unit exclusion in the identification of donor risk behavior. The requirement that transfusion services continue to use confidential unit exclusion needs to be debated in countries where more specific and sensitive clinical and serological screening methods are available. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that there are not enough benefits to justify continued use of confidential donation confirmation in the analyzed institution.
BACKGROUND: Confidential unit exclusion remains a controversial strategy to reduce the residual risk of transfusion-transmitted infections. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze confidential unit exclusion from its development in a large institution in light of confidential donation confirmation. METHODS: Data of individuals who donated from October 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009 were analyzed in a case-control study. The serological results and sociodemographic characteristics of donors who did not confirm their donations were compared to those who did. Variables with p-values < 0.20 in univariate analysis were included in a logistic multivariate analysis. RESULTS: In the univariate analysis there was a statically significant association between positive serological results and response to confidential donation confirmation of "No". Donation type, (firsttime or return donor - OR 1.69, CI 1.37-2.09), gender (OR 1.66, CI 1.35-2.04), education level (OR 2.82, CI 2.30-3.47) and ethnic background (OR 0.67, CI 0.55-0.82) were included in the final logistic regression model. In all logistic regression models analyzed, the serological suitability and confidential donation confirmation were not found to be statistically associated. The adoption of new measures of clinical classification such as audiovisual touch-screen computer-assisted self-administered interviews might be more effective than confidential unit exclusion in the identification of donor risk behavior. The requirement that transfusion services continue to use confidential unit exclusion needs to be debated in countries where more specific and sensitive clinical and serological screening methods are available. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that there are not enough benefits to justify continued use of confidential donation confirmation in the analyzed institution.
Entities:
Keywords:
Blood banks; Blood donors; Blood-borne pathogens; Evaluation of the efficacy-effectiveness of interventions
Authors: S A Glynn; S H Kleinman; G B Schreiber; M P Busch; D J Wright; J W Smith; C C Nass; A E Williams Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-07-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thelma T Gonçalez; Ester C Sabino; Nanci Alves Salles; Cesar de Almeida-Neto; Alfredo Mendrone; Pedro E Dorlhiac-Laccer; Jing Liu; Edward L Murphy; George B Schreiber Journal: Transfusion Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: L R Petersen; E Lackritz; W F Lewis; D S Smith; G Herrera; V Raimondi; J Aberle-Grasse; R Y Dodd Journal: Transfusion Date: 1994-10 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: John W Sellors; Robert Hayward; Graham Swanson; Anita Ali; R Brian Haynes; Ronald Bourque; Karen-Ann Moore; Lynne Lohfeld; Dawn Dalby; Michelle Howard Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2002-08-21 Impact factor: 3.295