Deferring blood donors with out‐of‐range blood pressure: Does it decrease the risk of adverse reactions?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many blood services defer blood donors with out-of-range blood pressure (BP) readings, but evidence supporting this practice is equivocal. This study assessed the association of pre-donation BP with vasovagal reactions (VVR). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Up until April 2020 ("pre-pandemic period"), donors in Québec (Canada) were deferred if their pre-donation systolic BP was within <90 to >180 mmHg, or if their pre-donation diastolic BP was within <50 to >100 mmHg. Between June 2022 and December 2023 ("late-pandemic period"), BP was measured, but donors with out-of-range readings were no longer deferred. The analysis assessed the association of pre-donation BP with on-site VVRs during the late-pandemic period and compared the rates of on-site VVRs during the pre-pandemic and late-pandemic periods. RESULTS: 189,329 donors made 532,042 donations (mean age = 44.9 years). Overall, 15,825 VVRs occurred, including 14,974 (94.8%) mild VVRs and 15,634 (99.0%) among donors with a normal BP. After adjustment for age, sex, and first-time/repeat status, the odds ratio of VVRs in donors with a low BP was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.67-1.63) and 0.96 (95% CI = 0.81-1.14) in donors with a high BP, compared to donors with a normal BP. Finally, the VVR rate (95% CI) was 3.0% (2.9%-3.1%) during the pre-pandemic period and 3.1% (3.0%-3.1%) during the late-pandemic period. DISCUSSION: There was no association between pre-donation BP and the odds of VVR. The incidence of VVR did not increase after withdrawing the BP deferral. This study provides the most compelling evidence in support of withdrawing BP deferrals in blood donors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".