BACKGROUND: Most blood centers utilize a confidential unit exclusion (CUE) process, intended to reduce the risk of transfusion-associated infectious diseases by allowing high-risk donors confidentially to exclude their blood from use for transfusion. The effectiveness of this method remains controversial. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Confirmatory or supplemental test results for antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus, human T-lymphotropic virus type I, and hepatitis C virus, as well as hepatitis B surface antigen and syphilis and screening test results for antibodies to hepatitis B core (antigen) and alanine aminotransferase levels were obtained for approximately 1.8 million units donated during 1991 and 1992 at five blood centers within the United States. The prevalences of these infectious disease markers in units that the donors confidentially excluded (CUE+) and units that the donors did not exclude (CUE-) were calculated and examined within demographic subgroups. RESULTS: Units that were CUE+ were 8 to 41 times more likely to be seropositive for antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus, hepatitis B surface antigen, and syphilis and three to four times more likely to react for antibody to hepatitis B core (antigen) or to have elevated alanine aminotransferase levels than units that were CUE- (p < 0.001). The positive predictive value of CUE (the percentage of CUE+ units that were confirmed seropositive for any marker) was 3.5 percent, and the sensitivity of CUE (the percentage of confirmed-seropositive units that were CUE+) was 2.3 percent. CONCLUSION: The current CUE process has low sensitivity and apparently low positive predictive value, and in many cases, it appeared that donors misunderstood it. Yet, CUE was not a "random process," as CUE+ units were more likely to be seropositive for any infectious disease marker than CUE- units. This suggests that efforts to improve the CUE system may be warranted. As risk factors for transfusion-transmitted infection become more difficult to identify by history-based screening, however, such efforts may have limited effect.
BACKGROUND: Most blood centers utilize a confidential unit exclusion (CUE) process, intended to reduce the risk of transfusion-associated infectious diseases by allowing high-risk donors confidentially to exclude their blood from use for transfusion. The effectiveness of this method remains controversial. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Confirmatory or supplemental test results for antibodies to human immunodeficiency virus, human T-lymphotropic virus type I, and hepatitis C virus, as well as hepatitis B surface antigen and syphilis and screening test results for antibodies to hepatitis B core (antigen) and alanine aminotransferase levels were obtained for approximately 1.8 million units donated during 1991 and 1992 at five blood centers within the United States. The prevalences of these infectious disease markers in units that the donors confidentially excluded (CUE+) and units that the donors did not exclude (CUE-) were calculated and examined within demographic subgroups. RESULTS: Units that were CUE+ were 8 to 41 times more likely to be seropositive for antibodies to humanimmunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus, hepatitis B surface antigen, and syphilis and three to four times more likely to react for antibody to hepatitis B core (antigen) or to have elevated alanine aminotransferase levels than units that were CUE- (p < 0.001). The positive predictive value of CUE (the percentage of CUE+ units that were confirmed seropositive for any marker) was 3.5 percent, and the sensitivity of CUE (the percentage of confirmed-seropositive units that were CUE+) was 2.3 percent. CONCLUSION: The current CUE process has low sensitivity and apparently low positive predictive value, and in many cases, it appeared that donors misunderstood it. Yet, CUE was not a "random process," as CUE+ units were more likely to be seropositive for any infectious disease marker than CUE- units. This suggests that efforts to improve the CUE system may be warranted. As risk factors for transfusion-transmitted infection become more difficult to identify by history-based screening, however, such efforts may have limited effect.
Authors: Cesar de Almeida-Neto; Jing Liu; David J Wright; Alfredo Mendrone-Junior; Pedro L Takecian; Yu Sun; Joao Eduardo Ferreira; Dalton de Alencar Fischer Chamone; Michael P Busch; Ester Cerdeira Sabino Journal: Transfusion Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Flávia Cristine Martineli Loureiro; Cláudia Di Lorenzo Oliveira; Anna Bárbara F Carneiro Proietti; Fernando Augusto Proietti Journal: Rev Bras Hematol Hemoter Date: 2011