Controlling Infectious Risk in Transfusion: Assessing the Effectiveness of Skin Disinfection in Blood Donors.
bacterial contamination
blood donors
skin disinfection
transfusion risk
Journal
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2227-9032
Titre abrégé: Healthcare (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101666525
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 May 2022
05 May 2022
Historique:
received:
23
03
2022
revised:
22
04
2022
accepted:
02
05
2022
entrez:
28
5
2022
pubmed:
29
5
2022
medline:
29
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Bacterial infectious risk is a major problem in transfusion medicine. The type of micro-organisms isolated during bacterial contamination of blood products indicates that the donor’s skin is its main source. In this context, the primary measures to reduce this risk are: (a) optimal disinfection of the donor’s arm and (b) satellite bag diversion of the initial volume of blood collected. This work aimed to verify the effectiveness of skin disinfection of the blood donor’s venipuncture site. Two methodological approaches were used: (a) qualitative and quantitative microbiological testing of the skin at the collection site, before and post-disinfection; (b) qualitative microbiological testing of the first deviated blood. Pre-disinfection testing showed skin microbial load values between 3 and >200 CFU/plate. More than two-thirds of the isolates were Gram-positive bacteria (77.8%) of which 57.7% were staphylococci. Among Gram-negative bacteria, Pseudomonadaceae, Enterobacteriaceae, and Acinetobacter spp. were isolated from the blood donors (BDs). Post-disinfection, a 100% reduction in microbial load was observed in 84.4% of BDs. Microbiological testing of the first blood diverted sample revealed the presence of microbial flora in 1.9% samples; of the isolates, 83.3% were non-aureus staphylococci. This study highlights the importance of the correct application of skin disinfection procedures in order to ensure blood safety.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35627982
pii: healthcare10050845
doi: 10.3390/healthcare10050845
pmc: PMC9141022
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011 May;66 Suppl 4:iv43-iv48
pubmed: 21521706
Transfus Apher Sci. 2014 Oct;51(2):97-102
pubmed: 25242310
Indian J Hematol Blood Transfus. 2013 Mar;29(1):17-20
pubmed: 24426327
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Aug 30;9(9):
pubmed: 34579208
Transfusion. 2019 Jan;59(1):412-427
pubmed: 30615810
Transfus Med Rev. 2005 Oct;19(4):259-72
pubmed: 16214015
Blood Transfus. 2008 Jul;6(3):121-6
pubmed: 18705235
Transfus Med Rev. 2005 Apr;19(2):110-26
pubmed: 15852240
Transfus Med. 2006 Dec;16(6):381-96
pubmed: 17163869
Lancet. 1958 Nov 8;2(7054):983-5
pubmed: 13599456
J Invest Dermatol. 2012 Mar;132(3 Pt 2):933-9
pubmed: 22189793
Transfusion. 2000 Mar;40(3):335-8
pubmed: 10738036
Transfusion. 2010 Jan;50(1):59-64
pubmed: 19821950
Am J Clin Dermatol. 2018 Oct;19(5):671-677
pubmed: 29882122
Transfus Med Rev. 2003 Apr;17(2):120-62
pubmed: 12733105
J Infect Dis. 2008 Aug 1;198(3):336-43
pubmed: 18522502
Transfus Clin Biol. 2013 May;20(2):174-81
pubmed: 23622838
Microb Ecol. 2018 Jul;76(1):113-120
pubmed: 27245597
Transfus Apher Sci. 2010 Feb;42(1):71-82
pubmed: 19939734
Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2016 Apr;30(2):477-95
pubmed: 27040966
Transfus Clin Biol. 2003 Jun;10(3):192-200
pubmed: 12798856
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Feb 12;(2):CD007948
pubmed: 25674776
Vox Sang. 2012 Aug;103(2):93-8
pubmed: 22348231
Transfus Med. 2020 Oct;30(5):384-390
pubmed: 32656890
BMC Public Health. 2019 Nov 15;19(1):1532
pubmed: 31730455
Vox Sang. 2004 Apr;86(3):157-63
pubmed: 15078249
Vox Sang. 2002 Jul;83(1):13-6
pubmed: 12100383
Blood Transfus. 2009 Apr;7(2):86-93
pubmed: 19503628
Healthcare (Basel). 2022 Feb 05;10(2):
pubmed: 35206921
Healthcare (Basel). 2021 Mar 19;9(3):
pubmed: 33808731
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2008;46(7):919-25
pubmed: 18605950
Transfus Apher Sci. 2004 Oct;31(2):155-63
pubmed: 15501419
Crit Care. 2018 Oct 27;22(1):271
pubmed: 30367640
Vox Sang. 2004 Apr;86(3):178-82
pubmed: 15078252