Donor Safety in Haemapheresis: Development of an Internet-Based Registry for Comprehensive Assessment of Adverse Events from Healthy Donors.

BACKGROUND Currently, there is an extensive but highly inconsistent body of literature regarding donor adverse events (AEs) in haemapheresis. As the reports diverge with respect to types and grading of AEs, apheresis procedures and machines, the range of haemapheresis-related AEs varies widely from about 0.03% to 6.6%. METHODS The German Society for Transfusion Medicine and Immunohaematology (DGTI) formed a 'Haemapheresis Vigilance Working Party' (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Hämapheresevigilanz; AGHV) to create an on-line registry for comprehensive and comparable AE assessment with all available apheresis devices in all types of preparative haemapheresis: plasmapheresis (PLS), plateletpheresis (PLT), red blood cell apheresis, all kind of leukaphereses (autologous/allogeneic blood stem cell apheresis, granulocyte apheresis, lymphocyte/monocyte apheresis) and all possible types of multi-component apheresis. To ensure the comparability of the data, the AGHV adopted the 'Standard for Surveillance of Complications Related to Blood Donation' from the International Society for Blood Transfusion in cooperation with the International Haemovigilance Network (IHN) and the American Association of Blood Banks for AE acquisition and automated evaluation. The registry is embedded in a prospective observational multi-centre study with a study period of 7 years. RESULTS A preliminary evaluation encompassed the time period from January, 2012 to December, 2015. During this time, the system proved to be safe and stable. Out of approximately 345,000 haemaphereses 16,477 AEs were reported (4.9%) from 20 participating centres. The majority of AEs occurred in PLSs (63%), followed by PLT (34.5%) and SC (2.2%). Blood access injuries (BAI) accounted for about 55% of the supplied AEs, whereas citrate toxicity symptoms, vasovagal reactions and technical events (e.g. disposable leakages, software failures) rather equally affected haemaphereses at 8-15%. Out of 12,348 finalized AEs, 8,759 (70.1%) were associated with a procedure-related break-off, with BAI being the prevailing cause (5,463/8,759; 62.4%). An automated centre- and procedure-specific AE evaluation according to the latest IHN standard and AGHV pre-settings is available within a few minutes. CONCLUSIONS An on-line electronic platform for comprehensive assessment and centre-specific automated evaluation of AEs in haemaphereses has been developed and proved to be stable and safe over a period of 4 years.