Autologous blood transfusion

Legal and ethical considerations in the transfusion of infected or untested autologous blood

Autologous blood transfusion grew in popularity in response to the recognition of transfusion-transmitted HIV and a lack of effective screening. Laboratory screening and donor deferrals have decreased the need for autologous transfusion. The issue of banking blood that has not been tested or has been tested and found positive for serious infectious diseases raises ethical and legal issues that must be addressed by transfusion services, transfusion committees, physicians, and administrators. This article provides a summary of pertinent federal and state laws regarding autologous blood transfusion and a framework to assess the ethical implications of various strategies.

Preoperative autologous blood donation: a therapy that needs to be scientifically evaluated

The aim of preoperative autologous blood donation (PABD) is to reduce both the risk of transfusion transmitted disease and the need of blood from donors. One advantage of PABD is to prevent transfusion-transmitted disease namely viral infections such as HIV or hepatitis virus or emerging virus. Actually, the very low residual risk of allogeneic transfusion does not argue for PABD. On the other hand, the risk of bacterial contamination must be taken in account for both autologous and homologous transfusion (HT). A meta-analysis showed that ABD reduces the exposure to HT (OR: O.17). Clinical studies evidenced that patients who predonated autologous blood were more likely to receive any blood transfusions (autologous and/or allogeneic) than those who did not (OR: 3.31). More, the reduction of exposure to allogeneic transfusion may be questioned in view of prescription bias. Additionally, PABD is poorly cost-effective. It leads to significant blood wastage while in most studies about half of the units are discarded. In conclusion PABD is a therapy that has not been sufficiently evaluated. The interest of this therapy remains to be demonstrated.

Faut-il encore faire des transfusions autologues différées programmées ?

The aim of preoperative autologous blood donation (ABD) was to reduce both the risk of transfusion transmitted disease and the need of blood from donors. Since ABD has been developed, the conditions of surgery and the criteria of choice have been modified thus leading to actualise the evaluation of this therapy. The first theoretical advantage of ABD is prevention of transfusion-transmitted disease namely viral infections such as HIV or hepatitis virus or emerging virus. Actually, the very low residual risk that remains from allogeneic transfusion after appropriate selection of donors, leukoreduction and nuclear acid testing does not argue for ABD. On the other hand, the risk of bacterial contamination must be taken in account for both ABD and homologous transfusion. A meta-analysis showed that ABD reduces the exposure to homologous transfusion (OR: 0.17). Clinical studies showed that patients who predonated autologous blood were more likely to receive any blood transfusions (autologous and/or allogeneic) than those who did not (OR: 3.31). More, the reduction of exposure to allogeneic transfusion may be questioned in view of prescription bias. Additionally, ABD is poorly cost-effective. It leads to significant blood wastage as in most of the studies about half of the units are discarded. In conclusion the interest of ABD has not been sufficiently evaluated. The interest of this therapy remains to be demonstrated.