Hemovigilance and transfusion-related incidents in recipients: Frequency, etiologies, and improvement proposals

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published May 1, 2025
https://doi.org/10.62438/tunismed.v103i5.5545
Download
pdf
Vol. 103 No. 5 (2025): Tunis Med May 2025

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Houda Romdhane
Regional Blood Transfusion Centre of Sousse (CRTS). Faculty of Pharmacy, Monastir, Tunisia
Imen Jarray
Regional Blood Transfusion Centre of Sousse (CRTS). Faculty of Medicine of Sousse, Tunisia
Zeineb Benlamine
Regional Blood Transfusion Centre of Sousse (CRTS). Faculty of Medicine of Sousse, Tunisia
Farah Yacoub
Regional Blood Transfusion Centre of Sousse (CRTS). Faculty of Pharmacy, Monastir, Tunisia
Neila Boukadida
Regional Blood Transfusion Centre of Sousse (CRTS). Faculty of Medicine of Sousse, Tunisia
Batoul Houissa
Regional Blood Transfusion Centre of Sousse (CRTS). Faculty of Pharmacy, Monastir, Tunisia

Abstract

Introduction-Aim : Blood transfusion can lead to transfusion-related incidents with varying degrees of severity. The aim of this study is to determine the frequency and causes of transfusion-related incidents, as well as to propose corrective actions to improve the hemovigilance system.


Methods : This is a descriptive, retrospective study conducted over a period of 4 years (from January 2019 to December 2022) at the regional blood transfusion center of Sousse. From the hemovigilance register and the patients' digitized transfusion records, socio-demographic, immuno-hematological, and clinical data were collected on a form specifically designed for this purpose.


Results : A total of 143 transfusion-related incidents were recorded. Red blood cell concentrates were the most implicated in these incidents (84,6%). The transfusion incident report form was used in 46,8% cases and was poorly filled out in 49,2% cases. The majority of patients came from hospitals (74,8%), with the pediatric department accounting for the largest share(26,1%), while private clinics reported 25,1% transfusion-related incidents. The average age was 36,2 years, with a female predominance (61,5%). The most common transfusion-related incident was non-hemolytic febrile reactions (40,5%), followed by allergic reactions (17,5%). Most transfusion-related incidents were benign (88,1%), although 3 deaths were reported.


Conclusion : This study revealed some gaps in the reporting of transfusion-related incidents. It is essential to plan a restructuring of the hemovigilance network with qualified personnel and continuous training

Keywords:

Hemovigilance, transfusion, transfusion-related incident, Transfusion safety

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Mahjoub S, Baccouche H, Raissi A, Ben Hamed L, Ben Romdhane N. Hemovigilance à Tunis: Bilan 2007-2013. Transfus Clin Biol. févr 2017;24(1):15‑22.
  2. Sahu A, Bajpai M. Determining the true incidence of acute transfusion reactions: Active surveillance at a specialized liver center. Hematol Transfus Cell Ther. 7 déc 2020;42:326‑32.
  3. Ministère de la santé publique. circulaire N°24/2007 [Internet]. p. 11. Disponible sur: http://www.sanhttp://www.santetunisie.rns.tn/images/cir2015/cir472.pdftetunisie.rns.tn/images/cir2015/cir472.pdf
  4. De Vries RRP, Faber JC, Strengers PFW, Board of the International Haemovigilance Network. Haemovigilance: an effective tool for improving transfusion practice. Vox Sang. janv 2011;100(1):60‑7.
  5. National Healthcare Safety Network. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National healthcare safety network biovigilance component haemovigilance module surveillance protocol. [Internet]. 2023 p. 31. Disponible sur: https://www.cdc.gov/nhsn/pdfs/biovigilance/bv-hv-protocol-current.pdf
  6. Faber JC. Revue des principaux systèmes d’hémovigilance dans le monde. Transfus Clin Biol. 1 mai 2009;16(2):86‑92.
  7. Faber J.C. L'hémovigilance en Europe. Transfus Clin Biol 2000;7:5-8.
  8. Beckers EA, Dinkelaar RB, Boekhrst PA, Van Ingen HE, Van Rhenen DJ. Reports of transfusion incidents: experiences from the first year of hemovigilance in the region of the former ZWN( South west Netherlands ) blood bank in Roterdam. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2003;147:1508-12.
  9. Waller C, Vicaiot M, gunzberger H, Groupe Receveurs de la SFTS. Analyse des fiches d'incidents transfuionnels enregistrés par 15 établissements de transfusion sanguine et établissements de santé pendant 17 mois. Transfus Clin Biol 1997;4:541-8
  10. De Sousa Neto AL, Barbosa MH. Analysis of immediate transfusion incidents reported in a regional blood bank. Rev Bras Hematol E Hemoter. 2011;33(5):337‑41.
  11. Siegenthaler MA, Schneider P, Vu DH, Tissot JD. Haemovigilance in a general university hospital: need for a more comprehensive classification and a codification of transfusion-related events. Vox Sang. janv 2005;88(1):22‑30.
  12. Potdar AA, Prakash P, Ramesh M, Syed J, Chalasani SH. Hemovigilance - Recipient and Donor Reaction Reporting: An Active Surveillance [Internet]. Research Square; October 2023. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3436483/v1
  13. Wang H, Ren D, Sun H, Liu J. Research progress on febrile non-hemolytic transfusion reaction: a narrative review. Ann Transl Med. déc 2022;10(24):1401.
  14. Rebibo D, Hauser L, Slimani A, Hervé P, Andreu G. The French Haemovigilance System: organization and results for 2003 . Transfus Apher Sci. 2004 Oct;31(2):145-53
  15. Rajesh K, Harsh S, Amarjit K. Effects of Prestorage Leukoreduction on the Rate of Febrile Nonhemolytic Transfusion Reactions to Red Blood Cells in a Tertiary Care Hospital. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 26 mai 2015;5(3):185‑8.
  16. Mertes PM, Boudjedir K. Allergie et transfusion. Transfus Clin Biol. 1 mai 2013;20(2):239‑42.
  17. Bazin A. Effets indésirables receveurs : fiches techniques. Transfus Clin Biol. 1 déc 2010;17(5):366‑74.
  18. Bernasinski M, Malinovsky JM, Roger PA, Zogheib E, Laperche S, Garraud O, et al. Les complications de la transfusion sanguine. Anesth Réanimation. 1 mai 2019;5(3):157‑74.
  19. Bolton-Maggs PHB, Cohen H. Serious Hazards of Transfusion (SHOT) haemovigilance and progress is improving transfusion safety. Br J Haematol. nov 2013;163(3):303‑14.
  20. Hmida MA, Mahjoub S, Ben Hamed L, Mojaat N, Bahloul A, Hmida S. Transfusion safety: Is there a difference between reported reactions in low-to-middle income and high-income countries? Transfus Apher Sci. 2024 ;63(3):103916.
  21. Shojania KG, Wald H, Gross R. Understanding medical error and improving patient safety in the inpatient setting. Med Clin North Am. 1 sept 2002;86(4):847‑67.
  22. Bueno JL, Bocanegra AB, Sánchez I, Mateos JM, Puyuelo A, García Erce JA et al. Transfusion-associated adverse events incidence and severity after the implementation of an active hemovigilance program with 24 h follow-up. A prospective cohort study. Transfusion. 2023 Oct;63(10):1859-1871. doi: 10.1111/trf.17538.
  23. EM Wood, AL Ang, A Bisht, PH Bolton Maggs, AG Bokhorst, O Flesland et al. International haemovigilance: what have we learned and what do we need to do next? - transfus Med 2019;(4):221-230.