BackgroundAtrial fibrillation is associated with higher mortality. Identification of causes of death and contemporary risk factors for all‐cause mortality may guide interventions.Methods and ResultsIn the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF) study, patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation were randomized to rivaroxaban or dose‐adjusted warfarin. Cox proportional hazards regression with backward elimination identified factors at randomization that were independently associated with all‐cause mortality in the 14 171 participants in the intention‐to‐treat population. The median age was 73 years, and the mean CHADS 2 score was 3.5. Over 1.9 years of median follow‐up, 1214 (8.6%) patients died. Kaplan–Meier mortality rates were 4.2% at 1 year and 8.9% at 2 years. The majority of classified deaths (1081) were cardiovascular (72%), whereas only 6% were nonhemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. No significant difference in all‐cause mortality was observed between the rivaroxaban and warfarin arms (P=0.15). Heart failure (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% CI 1.33–1.70, P<0.0001) and age ≥75 years (hazard ratio 1.69, 95% CI 1.51–1.90, P<0.0001) were associated with higher all‐cause mortality. Multiple additional characteristics were independently associated with higher mortality, with decreasing creatinine clearance, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, male sex, peripheral vascular disease, and diabetes being among the most strongly associated (model C‐index 0.677).ConclusionsIn a large population of patients anticoagulated for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, ≈7 in 10 deaths were cardiovascular, whereas <1 in 10 deaths were caused by nonhemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. Optimal prevention and treatment of heart failure, renal impairment, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes may improve survival.Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.

BACKGROUND Children are known to be physiologically and biochemically different from adults. However, there are no multi‐institutional studies examining the differences in the frequency, type, and severity of transfusion reactions in pediatric versus adult patients. This study aims to characterize differences between pediatric and adult patients regarding adverse responses to transfusions. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS This is a retrospective data analysis of nine children's hospitals and 35 adult hospitals from January 2009 through December 2015. Included were pediatric and adult patients who had a reported reaction to transfusion of any blood component. Rates are reported as per 100,000 transfusions for comparison between pediatric and adult patients. RESULTS Pediatric patients had an overall higher reaction rate compared to adults: 538 versus 252 per 100,000 transfusions, notably higher for red blood cell (577 vs. 278 per 100,000; p < 0.001) and platelet (833 vs. 358 per 100,000; p < 0.001) transfusions. Statistically higher rates of allergic reactions, febrile nonhemolytic reactions, and acute hemolytic reactions were observed in pediatric patients. Adults had a higher rate of delayed serologic transfusion reactions, delayed hemolytic transfusion reactions, and transfusion‐associated circulatory overload. CONCLUSION Pediatric patients had double the rate of transfusion reactions compared to adults. The nationally reported data on reaction rates are consistent with this study's findings in adults but much lower than the observed rates for pediatric patients. Future studies are needed to address the differences in reaction rates, particularly in allergic and febrile reactions, and to further address blood transfusion practices in the pediatric patient population.

No abstract

BACKGROUND In December 2014, a multinational collaboration of hemovigilance experts from the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT), the International Hemovigilance Network, and AABB published harmonized definitions of complications related to blood donation titled “Standard for Surveillance of Complications Related to Blood Donation.” Both mandatory and optional terms were included. The definitions are endorsed by the Alliance of Blood Operators and the European Blood Alliance. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS The objective of this study was to validate harmonized donor hemovigilance definitions with potential users. In June 2016, 30 real‐world cases were sent to potential users around the world along with the definitions, an answer sheet, and instructions on how to complete the validation exercise. RESULTS Overall, 54 responses from 25 countries were received, including over 400 comments. The results were presented for feedback at both ISBT and AABB meetings. Case diagnoses were consistent across most responders. Exceptions were rare adverse events, nonstandard presentations, or incomplete information. In general, the application of optional definitions, including severity grading and imputability, had the most variability. CONCLUSION The use of standardized terms in the donor setting serves to increase focus on donor safety, facilitate conversation, foster exchange of information, and frame questions for future research. Overall, the definitions provide adequate coverage of donor reactions; however, some terms require clarification. Severity grading and imputability and other optional terms need clear and objective definitions and instructions on when and how to use them. Additional feedback and final recommendations are summarized in this report.

BACKGROUND The Food and Drug Administration's requirements for “Blood and Blood Components Intended for Transfusion or Further Manufacturing Use” (Final Rule) effective May 2016 changed eligibility criteria for blood donors. A multivariate analysis was performed to measure its impact on donor deferral rates. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Four blood centers submitted data for similar 6‐month periods before and after implementation of the Final Rule. Data included presenting donors, units collected, deferrals, intended products from deferred donors, deferral reasons, presenting donor demographics, donor hemoglobin (Hgb), hematocrit (HCT), pulse, blood pressure (BP), temperature, and other reasons for deferral. Data were aggregated and periods compared. RESULTS After Final Rule implementation, successful donations decreased by 1.3% (83.1%‐81.9%), despite a 0.2% increase in presenting donors. The rate of Hgb/HCT, pulse, and deferrals increased, while deferrals for other reasons decreased. Male Hgb/HCT deferral rates increased 1.2% (4213 total). Black male donors' Hgb/HCT deferral rate increased (2.7%‐5.2%) but was counterbalanced by an overall 3.7% decrease in black female Hgb/HCT deferrals. While Hgb/HCT deferrals of black donors remained stable overall (17.0% vs. 16.2%), this trend was not observed by all centers. Deferrals for pulse increased (0.2%), as did BP deferrals (0.2%). CONCLUSION Although there was a small increase in presenting donors after implementation of the Final Rule, there was a decrease in successful donations. While it appeared that deferral in black donors was unchanged, this trend was not observed across all centers. Pulse and BP deferrals rose dissimilarly among centers, according to individual procedures.