BACKGROUND: Canadian Blood Services screens 100% of platelet concentrates (PCs) for bacterial contamination with the BacT/ALERT system. Quality-control sterility testing of 1% (≥10 units) of outdated PCs is performed monthly. Data from routine screening, quality-control testing, and septic reactions obtained from 2010 to 2016 are presented herein. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In total, 601,988 buffy coat PC pools and 186,737 apheresis PCs were routinely screened with aerobic cultures over 6 years. Outdate quality-control testing of 8535 buffy coat and 8498 apheresis PCs was performed using aerobic and anaerobic cultures during the same period. Results were classified as "true-positives" when the same bacterium was isolated in initial and confirmatory cultures or "false-negatives" when bacteria were missed in early screening and were captured during quality-control sterility testing or through investigation of sepsis cases. RESULTS: During routine screening, the true-positive rates between buffy coat (0.94 per 10,000) and apheresis (0.96 per 10,000) PCs were similar (p = 0.9473). Seventy-five bacteria isolated during PC screening included Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms. Six false-negative septic reactions were reported that implicated coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 3) and Staphylococcus aureus (n = 3) for approximate rates of 1 per 100,000 transfusion reactions and 1 per 500,000 fatalities. During quality-control testing, the false-negative rates between buffy coat (8 per 10,000) and apheresis (9 per 10,000) PCs were similar (p = 0.7897). All 15 quality-control isolates were Gram-positive bacteria. CONCLUSION: The current bacterial screening protocol is efficacious for identifying Gram-negative bacteria. However, the high proportion of Gram-positive organisms detected on outdate quality-control testing and septic transfusion events demonstrates a residual safety risk that merits further intervention.
BACKGROUND: Canadian Blood Services screens 100% of platelet concentrates (PCs) for bacterial contamination with the BacT/ALERT system. Quality-control sterility testing of 1% (≥10 units) of outdated PCs is performed monthly. Data from routine screening, quality-control testing, and septic reactions obtained from 2010 to 2016 are presented herein. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In total, 601,988 buffy coat PC pools and 186,737 apheresis PCs were routinely screened with aerobic cultures over 6 years. Outdate quality-control testing of 8535 buffy coat and 8498 apheresis PCs was performed using aerobic and anaerobic cultures during the same period. Results were classified as "true-positives" when the same bacterium was isolated in initial and confirmatory cultures or "false-negatives" when bacteria were missed in early screening and were captured during quality-control sterility testing or through investigation of sepsis cases. RESULTS: During routine screening, the true-positive rates between buffy coat (0.94 per 10,000) and apheresis (0.96 per 10,000) PCs were similar (p = 0.9473). Seventy-five bacteria isolated during PC screening included Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms. Six false-negative septic reactions were reported that implicated coagulase-negative staphylococci (n = 3) and Staphylococcus aureus (n = 3) for approximate rates of 1 per 100,000 transfusion reactions and 1 per 500,000 fatalities. During quality-control testing, the false-negative rates between buffy coat (8 per 10,000) and apheresis (9 per 10,000) PCs were similar (p = 0.7897). All 15 quality-control isolates were Gram-positive bacteria. CONCLUSION: The current bacterial screening protocol is efficacious for identifying Gram-negative bacteria. However, the high proportion of Gram-positive organisms detected on outdate quality-control testing and septic transfusion events demonstrates a residual safety risk that merits further intervention.
Authors: Seema Kacker; Evan M Bloch; Paul M Ness; Eric A Gehrie; Christi E Marshall; Parvez M Lokhandwala; Aaron A R Tobian Journal: Transfusion Date: 2019-01-08 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Alexandra A Savinkina; Kathryn A Haass; Mathew R P Sapiano; Richard A Henry; James J Berger; Sridhar V Basavaraju; Jefferson M Jones Journal: Transfusion Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 3.337
Authors: Chintamani Atreya; Simone Glynn; Michael Busch; Steve Kleinman; Edward Snyder; Sara Rutter; James AuBuchon; Willy Flegel; David Reeve; Dana Devine; Claudia Cohn; Brian Custer; Raymond Goodrich; Richard J Benjamin; Anna Razatos; Jose Cancelas; Stephen Wagner; Michelle Maclean; Monique Gelderman; Andrew Cap; Paul Ness Journal: Transfusion Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Maria Loza-Correa; Juan A Ayala; Iris Perelman; Keith Hubbard; Miloslav Kalab; Qi-Long Yi; Mariam Taha; Miguel A de Pedro; Sandra Ramirez-Arcos Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 3.240