Korean Journal of Clinical Laboratory Science (대한임상검사과학회지)

Korean Society for Clinical Laboratory Science (대한임상검사과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Status of Blood Products Release at a General Hospital in Gyeonggi-Do

경기도 일개 종합병원에서 혈액제제 출고 현황

  • Choi, Ho-Keun (Department of Biomedical Laboratory Science, General Graduate School, Dankook University) ;
  • Choi, Kyung-Suk (Department of Laboratory Medicine, Hallym University Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital)
  • 최호근 (단국대학교 일반대학원 임상병리학과) ;
  • 최경숙 (한림대학교동탄성심병원 진단검사의학과)
  • Received : 2022.02.23
  • Accepted : 2022.03.02
  • Published : 2022.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Blood products (BPs) can only be obtained through blood donation and hence represent a finite resource. BPs should therefore be used conservatively. However, BPs are being used indiscriminately without evidence. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reasons for the use of BPs and their appropriateness. The investigation was carried out based on hemoglobin levels. Data were obtained from Nov 1, 2020, to Oct 31, 2021, from a hospital's OCS/EMR systems. The BPs were dispensed in 21,303 cases, and the number of hemoglobin levels >7.0 g/dL or higher among red blood cell drugs used by each treatment department was 1,173 (>7.0 g/dL). The misuse of blood transfusions is increasing social costs, with the adequacy of transfusion becoming increasingly important. Hence, each medical institution should review the transfusion guideline evaluation index, check the status of the release of BPs, and institute educational programs covering transfusion guidelines and continually evaluate their adequacy.

혈액제제(BPs)는 한정적인 자원이다. 혈액제제는 가장 적절하게 사용되어야 하지만 근거 기반 없이 무분별하게 사용되고 있는 것이 사실이다. 본 연구는 헤모글로빈 수치를 기준으로 혈액제제의 사용 적절성을 평가하는 것을 목적으로 하였다. 2020년 11월 1일부터 2021년 10월 31일까지 병원에서 수행된 혈액 공급 데이터는 병원의 디지털 종합의료정보시스템을 활용하였다. 총 제공 건수는 21,303건이었고, 진료과별로 사용하는 농축적혈구제제의 공급 중 헤모글로빈 수치(>7.0 g/dL)의 경우는 1,173건으로 나타났다. 수혈의 오남용은 사회적 비용을 증가시키고, 수혈의 적절성은 더욱 중요해지고 있어, 각 의료기관은 수혈지침 평가지표를 검토하고, 수혈지침의 혈액제제 방출 현황 및 수혈지침의 교육프로그램을 점검하여 적절성을 평가해야 할 것으로 사료된다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This paper was supported by the Korean Association of Medical Technologists in 2022. and Proceeded by support project for thesis submission by member practitioners. Proofreading performed by Park CE.

References

  1. Shander A, Fink A, Javidroozi M, Erhard J, Farmer SL, Corwin H, et al. Appropriateness of allogeneic red blood cell transfusion: the international consensus conference on transfusion outcomes. Transfus Med Rev. 2011;25:232-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmrv.2011.02.001
  2. Yi C, Shin SY, Kim KH, Yu CS, Kwon MJ, Park H, et al. Evaluation of changes in appropriateness of blood transfusion in a tertiary care hospital after advertising the transfusion guideline proposed in 2009. Lab Med Online. 2013;3:97-103. http://doi.org/10.3343/lmo.2013.3.2.97
  3. AABB (American Association of Blood Banks), Fung MK, Grossman BJ, Hillyer CD, Westhoff CM. Technical Manual (Technical Manual of the American Assoc of Blood Banks). Bethesda: American Association of Blood Banks (AABB); 2014. p499-534.
  4. Division of Human Blood Safety Surveillance. Transfusion guideline. 4th ed. Osong: Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016.
  5. Carson JL, Carless PA, Hebert PC. Outcomes using lower vs higher hemoglobin thresholds for red blood cell transfusion. JAMA. 2013;309:83-84. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.50429
  6. Kim H, Jo HJ, Choi SR, Kim JN, Kim S, Um TH. A survey on the awareness and usage of the national transfusion guideline in Korea. Korean J Blood Transfus. 2016;27:155-163. https://doi.org/10.17945/kjbt.2016.27.2.155
  7. Cho J, Kim D, Lee E, Kim HO. Evaluation of the level of minimum hemoglobin trigger for red blood cell transfusion according to clinical departments. Korean J Blood Transfus. 2017;28:49-57. https://doi.org/10.17945/kjbt.2017.28.1.49
  8. Walsh TS, Boyd JA, Watson D, Hope D, Lewis S, Krishan A, et al. Restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategies for older mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a randomized pilot trial. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:2354-2363. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e318291cce4
  9. Carson JL, Guyatt G, Heddle NM, Grossman BJ, Cohn CS, Fung MK, et al. Clinical practice guidelines from the AABB: Red blood cell transfusion thresholds and storage. JAMA. 2016;316:2025-2035. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.9185
  10. Carson JL, Grossman BJ, Kleinman S, Tinmouth AT, Marques MB, Fung MK, et al. Red blood cell transfusion: a clinical practice guideline from the AABB. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157:49-58. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-1-201206190-00429
  11. Liumbruno GM, Rafanelli D. Appropriateness of blood transfusion and physicians' education: a continuous challenge for Hospital Transfusion Committees?. Blood Transfus. 2012;10:1-3. https://doi.org/10.2450/2011.0056-11
  12. Yang JH, O JA, Kim JY, Uhm TH. Development of indicators for transfusion appropriateness in Korea. PHWR. 2019;12:1696-1702.
  13. Yang M, Kim HS, Lee JM, Jung J, Choi SJ, Lim J. Evaluation of hemoglobin trigger and appropriateness of perioperative red cell transfusion in surgical departments. Korean J Blood Transfus. 2018;29:151-158. https://doi.org/10.17945/kjbt.2018.29.2.151
  14. Silverman JA, Barrett J, Callum JL. The appropriateness of red blood cell transfusions in the peripartum patient. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:1000-1004. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000142710.16254.21