header image

Study Links Age of Blood in Transfusions to Infections

Posted by: biologyblog | November 2, 2008 | 5 Comments |



by Rachel B

A new problem is arising where patients receiving blood transfusions 29 days old or older are becoming twice as likely to contract a hospital-acquired infection than those receiving newer blood. The FDA regulations allow for blood to be stored up to 42 days before it must be discarded, which makes the situation interesting since this blood is perfectly within standards. A study was conducted with 422 patients in an intensive care unit from July 2003 to September 2006. Those who received the older blood developed blood stream infections, pneumonia, urinary tract infections, heart valve infections, sepsis and other infections.  The blood they were given was not tainted, but over time the cells degraded and released biochemical substances called cytokines that lower the patient’s immune system.

I thought this article was interesting because we just learned about the circulatory system and how the blood delivers nutrients to the body. It’s a little scary that the blood would be weakening the body instead of assisting it. This also creates an interesting issue for the Red Cross since the blood usually gets used within 17 days, but this would really limit a lot of their blood supply and they are usually in need of donors as it is. 

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/health/29blood.html?em

under: Human Biology, Immune

Responses - Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)

I like how this article correlates with one of the recent lessons. However, it is bizarre how the FDA, which allows blood to sit for up to 42 days, hasn’t reassessed their standards, especially after all of these problems have been arising. Hopefully changes will be made soon, and maybe so blood supply doesn’t become limited, a sort of in-depth cleansing process could take affect.

I agree with Linda that it’s strange that the FDA has not reevaluated their standards. I also find it interesting that 29 day old blood can be so detrimental to one’s health.

What shocked me about this article is that blood transfusions are suppose to help the person receiving it. If the person goes in gets one and has more problems afterward then the purpose is somewhat pointless. I really hope that this is studied more and if the blood does go bad sooner then we thought then we need to change the number of days right away.

I found this article a little shocking. When you need a blood transfusion you are usually in pretty dire conditions and should be able to trust that the blood that a medical professional is putting in you is healthy and will assist you in your recovery. Knowing that if blood sits long enough it could develop diseases or make me even more ill is unsettling. However, if ever faced with a situation that I would need blood, I wouldn’t hesitate to receive it. If saving my life means that the blood I get would give me pneumonia or a UTI, so be it.

I find it a little disheartening to know that in recieving a blood transfusion that it could cause further disease. I thought this procedure was supposed to help people not make things somewhat worse. It seems like the FDA has more of a job to do, and needs to regulate on these sort of things. Granted I do agree with Bill that if i did need a blood transfusion I’d rather be sick then dead.

Leave a response - Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)

Your response:

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-Spam Image

Categories