Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Advertise Search Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 153
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 66-70

Recipient hemovigilance at a tertiary care hospital in Southern India: A cross-sectional study


Department of Transfusion Medicine, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India

Correspondence Address:
Abhishekh Basavarajegowda
Department of Transfusion Medicine, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Room No. 5042, Superspeciality Block, Puducherry
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/IJAMR.IJAMR_33_18

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Information on incidence of various transfusion reactions could help in early recognition as well as management and could also help to institute adequate measures to make blood transfusion as safe as possible. The primary objective of the present study was to determine the frequency and types of adverse transfusion reactions in patients who required blood component transfusion. Methodology: This was a cross-sectional, observational study conducted over a period of 22 months from September 2014 to June 2016 in the Department of Transfusion Medicine, JIPMER. All patients admitted to the wards of various specialty departments who were transfused with blood components and reported to have transfusion reaction during or after transfusion of blood components were included in the study. Results: A total of 90,758 components were issued during the study period, and 137 transfusion reactions were reported which accounted for 0.15% of total transfusions. Febrile nonhemolytic transfusion reaction (46.7%) was the most common reaction followed by allergic reaction (31.3%). Among different blood components, packed red blood cells (82%) were most commonly associated with transfusion reactions. Conclusion: Transfusion reactions unless serious are grossly underreported either due to lack of attributing the adverse event to transfusion or because the milder reactions are usually managed and unreported as the staff are too often used to having them, especially in chronically transfused patients.


[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
    Viewed253    
    Printed24    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded49    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal