No abstract

BACKGROUND Chinese blood donors with unconfirmed serological and/or molecular screening results are deferred permanently. This study investigated the implementation and performance of a follow‐up program aiming to improve the notification and management of deferred donors in Dalian, China. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS From January 2013 to February 2018, 411,216 donations were tested for HBsAg, anti‐HCV, anti‐HIV/HIV antigen, and antibodies to Treponema pallidum. HBV, HCV, and HIV nucleic acid testing (NAT) was performed in mini‐pools of six or in individual donations (IDs). Reactive donations were evaluated further with alternative serological assays and ID‐NAT re‐testing. A follow‐up procedure was developed to evaluate a subset of deferred donors that were either potential NAT yield cases, serology non‐reactive and NAT non‐repeated reactive (NRR), or serology NRR irrespective of NAT result. RESULTS Serological and molecular routine, plus supplemental testing, identified HBV, HCV, HIV, and TP in 503 (0.12%), 392 (0.09%), 156 (0.04%), and 2041 (0.49%) donations, respectively. Overall, 683 of 4156 (16.4%) eligible donors and 205 donors deferred prior 2013 participated in the program. They included 664 serology NRR and 224 NAT yield cases, and 58.8% repeat donors. All markers combined, follow‐up documented false reactivity, primary acute infections, and OBI in 61.9% (550/888), 3.3% (29/888), and 12.8% (114/888) of these donors, respectively. Isolated anti‐HBc or anti‐HBs reactivity was observed in 22% of cases. CONCLUSION Follow‐up testing refined infection status in 78.0% (693/888) of deferred donors with unconfirmed screening results. This high false‐positive rate encouraged to reevaluate the current screening strategies and to consider donor reentry.

Background: A great increase in the number of patients needs critical care to the intensive care unit (ICU) due to improvements in oncology. The aim of the study was to explore risk factors affecting survival of critically ill patients with solid cancers in ICU. Methods:The study retrospectively reviewed patients between 2001 and 2012, which were collected by Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC-III) from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, MA, USA.Results: A total of 38,508 adult patients, who were admitted to ICUs and 8,308 (21.6%) were diagnosed as an underlying malignancy; 1,671 and 3,165 adult patients with sold cancer were admitted to surgical ICU (SICU) and medical ICU (MICU), respectively. Patients in SICU had a higher survival rate at the point of 28-, 90-day, and 1-, 3-year than patients in MICU (P<0.001 for all). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that age ≥70, emergency admission, the presence of metastases, Oxford Acute Severity of Illness Score (OASIS) ≥30 and sepsis were independent risk factors affecting 28-day survival in SICU. In MICU, emergency admission, metastatic disease, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) ≥3, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) ≥39, Acute Physiology Score III (APS III) ≥40, Oxford Acute Severity of Illness Score (OASIS) ≥30, Elixhauser comorbidity index ≥9 and sepsis were independent risk factors for 28-day survival rate. The area under curve (AUC) of the OASIS for predicting ICU mortality was 0.824 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.805-0.842], which was obviously higher than other scores in SICU. The AUC of the SAPS II for predicting ICU mortality was 0.820 (95% CI: 0.806-0.833), which was slightly higher than other scores in MICU.Conclusions: Patients with cancer in SICU have longer survive time than patients with cancer in MICU.The prediction of prognosis of critically ill cancer patients can guide treatment and optimize medical resources.