• Users Online: 139
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 111-114

Implication of deferral pattern on the donor pool: Study at a Tertiary Care Hospital


1 Department of Immunohematology and Blood Transfusion, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India
2 Department of Immunohematology and Blood Transfusion, Malabar Cancer Institute, Thalassery, Kerala, India

Correspondence Address:
Shamee Shastry
Department of Immunohematology and Blood Transfusion, KMC, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: Nil., Conflict of Interest: There are no conflicts of interest.


DOI: 10.4103/1658-5127.165649

Rights and Permissions

Background and Objectives: Donor screening process is one of the most important steps in protecting the safety of blood supply. Donors who do not meet specified criteria are deferred either temporarily or permanently. These criteria are designed to protect both donors and patient safety. Due to the varied rates and reasons for deferrals in the existing literature, we aimed to evaluate the patterns and prevalence of deferrals in our institution. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at a Tertiary Care Hospital, Karnataka, Southern India, to evaluate the various reasons for blood donor deferral from January 2011 to January 2014. Demographic data of blood donors was obtained through the blood bank database and secondary measures such as the type of deferral (permanent/temporary, pathogenic/nonpathogenic, and harmful to donor/recipient) were assessed. Results: A total of 54,653 subjects presented to our blood bank during this period out of which 2935 (5.6%) were deferred. The deferral to donor percentage was higher in females (36.54%) than males (3.64%). Low hemoglobin was the major deferral criterion seen in our participants (48.1%) followed by hypertension (16.4%), underweight (8.9%). Low pulse rate and fasting donor were the least prevalent reasons. A total of 36.8% of reasons for deferral were harmful to donors, 88.2% were nonpathogenic, and 98.1% were temporary causes. Conclusion: Variations in donor deferral may be attributed to different donor selection criteria in different regions and centers. Hence, it is important to know the common causes of donor deferral in a region so that measures may be taken to improve the donor pool.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4078    
    Printed128    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded370    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 5    

Recommend this journal