Background: Prestorage leukoreduction of red blood cell (RBC) bags prevents accumulation of pro-inflammatory mediators and experimentally attenuates posttransfusion inflammation in healthy dogs. However, the effect of leukoreduction on post-transfusion inflammation in critically ill dogs is unclear.Hypothesis: Dogs transfused with leukoreduced (LR) RBC will have lower concentrations of leukocytes, interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1), and C-reactive protein (CRP) within 24 hours of post-transfusion compared to dogs transfused with nonleukoreduced (NLR) RBC.Animals: Sixty-one RBC-transfused dogs (LR = 34, NLR = 27).Methods: Randomized, blinded, controlled preliminary clinical trial. Blood bag processing was randomized to create identically appearing LR and NLR bags. Group allocation occurred with transfusion of the oldest compatible RBC bag. Blood samples were collected pretransfusion and at 8 and 24 hours post-transfusion for leukocyte count, IL-6, IL-8, MCP-1, and CRP. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis using linear mixed effects models. Significance was set at P < .05.Results: No significant differences were found between groups in concentrations of leukocytes (P = .93), IL-6 (P = .99), IL-8 (P = .75), MCP-1 (P = .69), or CRP (P = .18) over time. Eleven LR dogs (32%) and 4 NLR dogs (15%) were euthanized in the hospital (P = .14). No natural deaths occurred.Conclusions and Clinical Importance: No differences in inflammation biomarker concentrations were detected over time between dogs transfused with LR or NLR RBC, but heterogeneity likely hampered the ability to detect a difference with this sample size. The novel randomization and enrollment protocol was successfully implemented across 2 participating institutions and will be easily scaled up for a future multicenter clinical trial.

Objective To describe small animal transfusion practices in Australia, including access to blood products and frequency of pre‐transfusion compatibility testing and medication administration. Methods An online survey was disseminated to target Australian veterinarians treating dogs and cats. Information collected included demographics, sources of blood products, blood storage, recipient compatibility testing and administration of medications pre‐transfusion. Associations between the use of compatibility tests and premedications were assessed using the χ2 test. Significance was set at P < 0.05. Results A total of 199 Australian veterinarians were included; however, there was some attrition of respondents over the course of the survey. The majority of respondents were in general practice (n = 133/199). Access to fresh whole blood was commonly reported for dogs (n = 179/199) and cats (n = 131/198), whereas blood components were less commonly available (canine red blood cells [RBC], n = 52/199 and plasma, n = 157/199; feline RBC, n = 9/198 and plasma, n = 21/198). Most blood was sourced from the pets of owners affiliated with the veterinary clinic (n = 179/196). The respondents who did not blood type or crossmatch dogs were significantly more likely to use premedication than those who did these tests (both comparisons: P < 0.001). Likewise, the respondents who did not blood‐type cats were significantly more likely to use premedication (P = 0.003); however, there was no association between crossmatching and using premedication in cats (P = 0.183). Conclusion This is the first survey to describe transfusion practices across a variety of practice types throughout Australia. Future work is needed to determine how representative these results are of current transfusion practices across Australia, and if so, what can be done to optimise them.