O papel do voto de autoexclusão na segurança transfusional

Castro, Vagner

doi:10.1590/s1516-84842009000400002

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Usually these studies were regional that were conducted during a short period and showed contradictory results. ( 10 ) The aim of this study was to verify whether the CUE procedure that is currently used in the Regional Blood Bank in Londrina is effective to identify donors at risk of transmitting blood-borne diseases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of confidential unit exclusion in screening blood donors of the regional blood bank in Londrina, Paraná State

Vogler

Saito

Spinosa

et al. 2011

Rev. Bras. Hematol. Hemoter.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundFor transfusion purposes, blood donors must be accepted both in clinical and serological evaluations and must not have excluded their own donation using the confidential unit exclusion.AimThe objective of this study was to verify whether blood donors who choose self exclusion are more likely to be positive in serological tests than donors who do not.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis was carried out of 51,861 consecutive whole blood donations from January 2004 to December 2008 at a public blood bank in Londrina, Southern Brazil.ResultsSelf exclusion was chosen in 1672 (3.2%) donations, most frequently by first-time blood donors (p-value < 0.0001), by blood donors from external collections (p-value < 0.0001), by men (p value < 0.0001) and by under 30-year-old donors (p-value < 0.0001). The frequency of positive serology was 5.3% in the group that chose self exclusion and 3.5% in the group that did not choose self exclusion (p-value < 0.0001).ConclusionsThese results show that confidential unit exclusion used in this blood bank is effective and is inexpensive. However, the diagnostic power to detect blood-borne infections was low and resulted in the discard of a high number of blood bags without any direct or indirect serologic markers of pathogens. The use of confidential unit exclusion could be replaced with molecular tests to screen blood donors.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of confidential unit exclusion in screening blood donors of the regional blood bank in Londrina, Paraná State

Vogler

Saito

Spinosa

et al. 2011

Rev. Bras. Hematol. Hemoter.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When it was recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the 1980s with the aim of increasing blood transfusion safety, self-exclusion was adopted by several countries to avoid the use of blood bags that, even with negative serology, may still be in the 'window' period for blood-borne diseases. ( 4 , 5 ) Using selfexclusion, donors have the opportunity to convey to transfusion services their possible exposure to risk factors for infectious diseases and confidentially excluded themselves.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Confidential unit exclusion at the regional blood bank in Montes Claros

Maia¹,

Ruas²,

Urias³

2011

Rev. Bras. Hematol. Hemoter.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis study aimed at analyzing the rate of self-exclusion at the Regional Blood Bank in Montes Claros.MethodsData of self-excluding donors from August 2008 to August 2010 were analyzed. The following variables were considered: age, marital status, gender, ethnical background, blood group, Rh factor, number of donations, type of donation and serologic results.ResultsDuring the analyzed period, 34,778 individuals donated blood, 215 (0.62%) of which were self-excluded; 12% of donors did not answer, 6.3% ballots were spoilt and 13.6% of the responses were considered non-compliant. The profile of the donors was: male (81.9%), single (50.7%), aged between 19 and 29 years old (52.1%), Mulatto (48.3%), blood group O (32.1%) and positive Rh (32.1%). Most individuals were donating for the 2ndto 5th time (43.7%) and had negative serology (94.4%).ConclusionIt was not evident that self-excluding donors had higher rates of seropositivity.

show abstract

“…Por outro lado, havendo restrições nas triagem pré-clínica, clínica e sorológica e no voto de auto exclusão, o candidato é considerado temporária ou definitivamente inapto (DORLHIAC-LLACER, 2001). O doador inapto definitivo é aquele que faz uso de drogas ilícitas injetáveis, teve algum tipo de câncer ou problemas na coagulação sanguínea, foi submetido a gastrectomia total, apresentou soropositividade para hepatite B e C, sífilis, doença de Chagas, HIV e HTLV I e II entre outros, ou aquele se auto excluiu duas vezes consecutivas com o VAE (CASTRO, 2009;MARTINS et al, 2009;MONTEIRO;COMPARSI, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified