Evaluation of donor self exclusion program.
Donor self exclusion is a low technology procedure to avoid blood donations from the high-risk groups for HIV infection. This strategy has been widely used in western countries to reduce the risk of transfusion associated AIDS. At Ramathibodi Hospital, we conducted a study on donor self exclusion pr...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Article |
Published: |
2018
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/22648 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Mahidol University |
id |
th-mahidol.22648 |
---|---|
record_format |
dspace |
spelling |
th-mahidol.226482018-08-10T15:56:53Z Evaluation of donor self exclusion program. P. Chiewsilp S. Kitkornpan S. Stabunswadigan W. Iamsilp C. Suebsaeng Mahidol University Medicine Donor self exclusion is a low technology procedure to avoid blood donations from the high-risk groups for HIV infection. This strategy has been widely used in western countries to reduce the risk of transfusion associated AIDS. At Ramathibodi Hospital, we conducted a study on donor self exclusion program during March-December 1991. It was found 2.60%-6.55% (mean = 4.59%) of a total of 4,286 units of blood that were from the donors who indicated that their blood may not be safe for transfusion while the rest of them declared that their blood was safe based on sexual behavior during the past 3 months and the history of intravenous drug use. Among 202 units of unsafe blood, there were 1 (0.49%) positive for HIV-Ag, 7 (3.46%) for anti-HIV, 5 (2.48%) for anti-HCV, 10 (4.95%) for HBsAg and 6 (2.97%) for VDRL while there was no HIV-Ag detected in 4,084 units of safe blood but 19 (0.46%) were positive for anti-HIV (p < 0.05), 65 (1.59%) for anti-HCV, 219 (5.36%) for HBsAg and 56 (1.37%) for VDRL. It was clearly demonstrated in this study that confidential self-exclusion or HIV-Ag testing would have eliminated this HIV-Ag reactive unit in the "window period" from transfusion, while the syphilis screening would not have had any value as a surrogate marker. However, self-exclusion programs are likely to prove too non-specific and need more time to educate the donors.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) 2018-08-10T08:56:53Z 2018-08-10T08:56:53Z 1993-12-01 Article The Southeast Asian journal of tropical medicine and public health. Vol.24 Suppl 1, (1993), 130-132 01251562 2-s2.0-0027902509 https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/22648 Mahidol University SCOPUS https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=0027902509&origin=inward |
institution |
Mahidol University |
building |
Mahidol University Library |
continent |
Asia |
country |
Thailand Thailand |
content_provider |
Mahidol University Library |
collection |
Mahidol University Institutional Repository |
topic |
Medicine |
spellingShingle |
Medicine P. Chiewsilp S. Kitkornpan S. Stabunswadigan W. Iamsilp C. Suebsaeng Evaluation of donor self exclusion program. |
description |
Donor self exclusion is a low technology procedure to avoid blood donations from the high-risk groups for HIV infection. This strategy has been widely used in western countries to reduce the risk of transfusion associated AIDS. At Ramathibodi Hospital, we conducted a study on donor self exclusion program during March-December 1991. It was found 2.60%-6.55% (mean = 4.59%) of a total of 4,286 units of blood that were from the donors who indicated that their blood may not be safe for transfusion while the rest of them declared that their blood was safe based on sexual behavior during the past 3 months and the history of intravenous drug use. Among 202 units of unsafe blood, there were 1 (0.49%) positive for HIV-Ag, 7 (3.46%) for anti-HIV, 5 (2.48%) for anti-HCV, 10 (4.95%) for HBsAg and 6 (2.97%) for VDRL while there was no HIV-Ag detected in 4,084 units of safe blood but 19 (0.46%) were positive for anti-HIV (p < 0.05), 65 (1.59%) for anti-HCV, 219 (5.36%) for HBsAg and 56 (1.37%) for VDRL. It was clearly demonstrated in this study that confidential self-exclusion or HIV-Ag testing would have eliminated this HIV-Ag reactive unit in the "window period" from transfusion, while the syphilis screening would not have had any value as a surrogate marker. However, self-exclusion programs are likely to prove too non-specific and need more time to educate the donors.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) |
author2 |
Mahidol University |
author_facet |
Mahidol University P. Chiewsilp S. Kitkornpan S. Stabunswadigan W. Iamsilp C. Suebsaeng |
format |
Article |
author |
P. Chiewsilp S. Kitkornpan S. Stabunswadigan W. Iamsilp C. Suebsaeng |
author_sort |
P. Chiewsilp |
title |
Evaluation of donor self exclusion program. |
title_short |
Evaluation of donor self exclusion program. |
title_full |
Evaluation of donor self exclusion program. |
title_fullStr |
Evaluation of donor self exclusion program. |
title_full_unstemmed |
Evaluation of donor self exclusion program. |
title_sort |
evaluation of donor self exclusion program. |
publishDate |
2018 |
url |
https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/22648 |
_version_ |
1763489971434422272 |