Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to showcase how implementing a patient blood management (PBM) program effectively cuts unnecessary red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in a New York City urban community teaching hospital. METHODS:Analyzing seven years from 2013 to 2019, a retrospective review of RBC transfusions was conducted. RESULTS:Following the introduction of PBM, considerable improvements were observed annually. These included a drop in mean pretransfusion hemoglobin levels from 7.26 g/dL (2013) to 6.58 g/dL (2019), a 34% reduction in yearly RBC unit transfusions, and fewer units given to patients with pre-Hgb levels ≥ 7 g/dL (from 1210 units in 2013 to 310 units in 2019). Furthermore, this study noted a decline in two-unit RBC orders when Hgb levels were ≥ 7 g/dL from 65 orders in 2013 to merely 3 in 2019. The estimated total cost savings attributed to the six-year PBM program duration after full implementation in 2014 amounted to USD 2.1 million. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, PBM implementation significantly decreased RBC transfusions and enhanced transfusion practices. The findings emphasize that successful PBM strategies do not always necessitate extensive resources or increased budgets but instead rely on the application of intuitive methods, as evidenced by this study.

BACKGROUND:Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) frequently undergo prophylactic red blood cell (RBC) exchange transfusion and simple transfusion (RCE/T) to prevent complications of disease, such as stroke. These treatment procedures are performed with a target hemoglobin S (HbS) of ≤30%, or a goal of maintaining an HbS level of <30% immediately prior to the next transfusion. However, there is a lack of evidence-based instructions for how to perform RCE/T in a way that will result in an HbS value <30% between treatments. PRINCIPAL OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To determine whether targets for post-treatment HbS (post-HbS) or post-treatment HCT (post-HCT) can help to maintain an HbS <30% or <40% between treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We performed a retrospective study of patients with SCD treated with RCE/T at Montefiore Medical Center from June 2014 to June 2016. The analysis included patients of all ages, and data including 3 documented parameters for each RCE/T event: post-HbS, post-HCT, and follow-up HbS (F/u-HbS), which is the pre-treatment HbS prior to the next RCE/T. Generalized linear mixed model was used for estimating the association between post-HbS or post-HCT levels and F/u-HbS <30%. RESULTS:Based on our results, targeting post-HbS ≤10% was associated with higher odds of having events of F/u-HbS <30% between monthly treatments. Targeting post-HbS ≤15% was associated with higher odds of events of F/u-HbS < 40%. As compared to post-HCT ≤30%, a post-HCT >30%-36% did not contribute to more F/u-HbS <30% or HbS <40% events. CONCLUSIONS:For patients with SCD undergoing regular RCE/T for stroke prevention, a post-HbS ≤10% can be used as a goal to help maintain an HbS <30% for 1 month, and a post-HbS ≤15% allowed patients to maintain HbS <40%.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:There is clinical equipoise for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Objective/UNASSIGNED:To determine the safety and efficacy of CCP compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving noninvasive supplemental oxygen. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:CONTAIN COVID-19, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, was conducted at 21 US hospitals from April 17, 2020, to March 15, 2021. The trial enrolled 941 participants who were hospitalized for 3 or less days or presented 7 or less days after symptom onset and required noninvasive oxygen supplementation. Interventions/UNASSIGNED:A unit of approximately 250 mL of CCP or equivalent volume of placebo (normal saline). Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:The primary outcome was participant scores on the 11-point World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement on day 14 after randomization; the secondary outcome was WHO scores determined on day 28. Subgroups were analyzed with respect to age, baseline WHO score, concomitant medications, symptom duration, CCP SARS-CoV-2 titer, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus, and enrollment quarter. Outcomes were analyzed using a bayesian proportional cumulative odds model. Efficacy of CCP was defined as a cumulative adjusted odds ratio (cOR) less than 1 and a clinically meaningful effect as cOR less than 0.8. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of 941 participants randomized (473 to placebo and 468 to CCP), 556 were men (59.1%); median age was 63 years (IQR, 52-73); 373 (39.6%) were Hispanic and 132 (14.0%) were non-Hispanic Black. The cOR for the primary outcome adjusted for site, baseline risk, WHO score, age, sex, and symptom duration was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.75-1.18) with posterior probability (P[cOR<1] = 72%); the cOR for the secondary adjusted outcome was 0.92 (95% CrI, 0.74-1.16; P[cOR<1] = 76%). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested heterogeneity of treatment effect: at day 28, cORs were 0.72 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.13; P[cOR<1] = 93%) for participants enrolled in April-June 2020 and 0.65 (95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.02; P[cOR<1] = 97%) for those not receiving remdesivir and not receiving corticosteroids at randomization. Median CCP SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titer used in April to June 2020 was 1:175 (IQR, 76-379). Any adverse events (excluding transfusion reactions) were reported for 39 (8.2%) placebo recipients and 44 (9.4%) CCP recipients (P = .57). Transfusion reactions occurred in 2 (0.4) placebo recipients and 8 (1.7) CCP recipients (P = .06). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:In this trial, CCP did not meet the prespecified primary and secondary outcomes for CCP efficacy. However, high-titer CCP may have benefited participants early in the pandemic when remdesivir and corticosteroids were not in use. Trial Registration/UNASSIGNED:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364737.

The ABO blood group system includes phenotypes, or subgroups, that differ in the amount of A and B antigens present on the red blood cells (RBCs). These subgroups also differ in the A, B, or H substances present in secretions (for individuals who have the secretor phenotype). B subgroups are very rare and are less frequently reported than A subgroups. Usually, B subgroups are discovered during serologic testing when there is a discrepancy between RBC and serum grouping results. Subgroups of B are usually identified by a reference laboratory using molecular and adsorption-elution methods. This report details a case of a young, healthy, pregnant woman with a B subgroup detected by a small transfusion service using adsorption-elution methods. Serology and genotyping of the ABO gene was performed at a reference laboratory where the serology was consistent with a B subgroup, but no changes were identified in ABO gene sequencing. It is important to correctly identify B subgroups in donors and recipients to help resolve ABO discrepancies and potentially prevent ABO incompatibility in blood transfusion, thus minimizing transfusion reactions.

BACKGROUND:The COVID-19 pandemic has placed additional stressors on physician lives. In this study, we report findings from a survey conducted among attending physician (AP) members of the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) to elucidate the status of their well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as resources provided or actions taken by their institutions and themselves personally to maintain or improve their well-being. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS/METHODS:A 17-question, voluntary, IRB-approved survey regarding well-being was distributed to the ASFA AP members between August 26, 2020 and September 16, 2020. The descriptive analyses were reported as number and frequency of respondents for each question. Non-parametric chi-square tests, ANOVA, and paired t-tests were performed to determine differences in categorical variables, changes in well-being scores, and compare time points, respectively. RESULTS:Based on the responses of 70 attending level physicians representing the United States (U.S., 53, 75.7%) and outside the U.S. (17, 24.3%), the following were observed: (1) COVID-19 negatively affects the well-being of a sub-population of APs, (2) neither institutional nor individual measures to improve well-being completely resolved the problem of decreased AP well-being during the pandemic, and (3) personal actions may be superior to institutional resources. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There is a widespread decline in AP well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic that was not adequately improved by institutional or personal resources/actions taken. Institutions and physicians must work together to implement strategies including resources and actions that could further improve AP physician well-being during a public health crisis.

The wide spread availability and use of sophisticated high-speed telecommunication networks coupled with inexpensive and easily accessible computing capacity have catalyzed the creation of new tools and strategies for healthcare delivery. Such tools and strategies are of value to apheresis medicine (AM) practitioners if they improve delivery of patient care, enhance safety during a therapeutic apheresis (TA) intervention, facilitate care access, advance technical capabilities of apheresis devices, and/or elevate quality performance within TA programs. In the past several years, healthcare delivery systems' adoption of telecommunication technologies has been fostered by organizational financial and quality improvement objectives. More recently, adoption of telehealth technologies has been catalyzed by the COVID-19 pandemic as these technologies enhance both patient and provider safety in an era of social distancing. These changes will also influence the delivery of TA services which now can be generally viewed in a tripartite model format comprised of traditional hospital-based fixed site locales, mobile TA operations and lately an evolving telemedicine remote management model now reffered to as telapheresis (TLA). This communication developed by the Public Affairs and Advocacy Committee of the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) and endorsed by its Board of Directors, reviews and describes various aspects of established and evolving electronic technologies related to TLA and the practice of AM. In subsequent companion publications, additional aspects to TLA will be explored and ASFA's vision of reasonable, regulatory compliant and high-quality TLA practices will be expounded.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Obtaining vascular access (VA) is a critical part of the therapeutic apheresis (TA) treatment plan. Currently, there are no guidelines for VA decision-making and maintenance related to TA procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:A 28-question survey to gather qualitative information regarding VA practices was distributed to the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) 2018 Annual Meeting attendees and all ASFA members for voluntary participation. The descriptive analyses were reported as the number and frequency of responses for each question. RESULTS:Total participation was 206 with 147 (71.4%) answering some or all 16 VA focused questions. The majority of respondents were nurses or physicians (89.0%) at sites providing ≥100 procedures. The most common TA procedures were plasma exchange, red cell exchange, and leukocytapheresis. The VA evaluation was predominantly performed by the TA service (80.3%, 118/147). The majority of TA physicians and/or providers do not insert (91.7%, 132/144) or remove (81.2%, 117/143) VA catheters. When an emergent TA procedure is needed, the majority of respondents felt <2 hours was an acceptable turnaround time for VA placement (64.3%, 92/143). The most common anticoagulant for locking catheters and/or ports was heparin. The majority of TA services (54.3%, 76/140) collect data on aborted procedures due to catheter/line/port problems unrelated to infection, but only 41.4% (58/140) collect data on infections. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:VA contributes significantly to the overall risks associated with and the safety of TA. Our survey shows that there is substantial variation but common themes in TA VA practices. Several areas for future research may be identified.