Utilization of Universal Group O Blood By Non Group O Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract INTRODUCTION: Individuals with group O blood are designated ‘universal donors’ as their red cells can be transfused to all individuals. 15% of donors are Rh negative; their red cells are particularly valuable as they are the only blood compatible with O Rh negative recipients. Canada has experienced group O blood shortages in the past, which have been aggravated by group O red cells being given to non-O recipients. We performed a study to determine the utilization patterns of group O red cells (both Rh positive and Rh negative) by non-O recipients in a large Canadian city. METHODS: Blood utilization data from all group O Rh positive and Rh negative red cells transfused at three academic hospitals between April 2002 and March 2013 were used for this study. Autologous and directed donor red cells were not included. Information was collected for all patients receiving group O blood including: age; inpatient or outpatient setting; ABO and Rh type; number of transfusions received; presence of red cell alloantibodies; most responsible diagnosis (MRD); and indications for transfusion. Descriptive statistics were performed using SAS 9.2. RESULTS: During the study period, 289,392 units of red cells were transfused, of which 139,320 were group O units. A minority of O red cells (8.7%) were transfused to non-O (A,B or AB) recipients. Of the 106,827 transfused O Rh positive red cells, 4.3% (4,594) were given to non-O individuals. Of the 32,493 transfused O Rh negative red cells, 23.2% (7,544) were given to non-O recipients. When O Rh negative red cells were considered, 32.8% (10,670) were given to Rh positive recipients. For outpatient O red cell transfusions (31,730 units), 19.6% of O Rh negative units and 5.9% of O Rh positive units were transfused to non-O recipients. For inpatient O red cell transfusions (107,590 units), 24.2% of O Rh negative units and 3.8% of O Rh positive units were transfused to non-O recipients. The most common MRD for non-O patients receiving O blood were circulatory disease, cancer, and trauma. The most common indications for transfusion of O negative blood to non-O recipients were: presence of an alloantibody requiring phenotype specific blood (26.0%); trauma requiring uncrossmatched blood (8.5%); outdating unit (12.5%); recipient was in neonatal ICU (11.5 %); and recipient was a transplant patient (6.4%). In 39.5% of cases, there was no clear indication for transfusion of O negative blood to a non-O recipient. CONCLUSIONS: Most O Rh positive blood is given to O Rh positive recipients. However, O Rh negative blood is frequently given to non-O recipients; this can contribute to shortages. A number of factors leading to transfusion of non-group identical blood - presence of an alloantibody, the need for massive/urgent transfusion (e.g., trauma), and outdating units - could be better managed by Transfusion Medicine Services to preserve the scarce resource of 'universal donor' blood. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".