Background: Blood transfusions are a vital component of modern healthcare, yet adverse reactions to blood product transfusions can cause morbidity, and rarely result in mortality. Therefore, accurate reporting of transfusion related adverse events (TRAEs) is paramount to improved transfusion practice. This study aims to investigate real-world data (RWD) on TRAEs by evaluating differences between ICD 9/10-based electronic health records (EHR) and blood bank-specific reporting.Study Design and Methods: TRAE data were retrospectively collected from a blood bank-specific database between Jan 2015 and June 2019 as the reference data source and compared it to ICD 9/10 diagnostic codes corresponding to various TRAEs. Seven reactions that have corresponding ICD 9/10 diagnostic codes were evaluated: Transfusion related circulatory overload (TACO), transfusion related acute lung injury (TRALI), febrile non-hemolytic reaction (FNHTR), transfusion-related anaphylactic reaction (TRA), acute hemolytic transfusion reaction (AHTR), delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction (DHTR), and delayed serologic reaction (DSTR). These accounted for 33% of the TRAEs at an academic institution during the study period.Results: Among 18637 adult blood transfusion recipients, there were 229 unique patients with 263 TRAE related ICD codes in the EHR, while there were 191 unique patients with 287 TRAEs identified in the blood bank database. None of the categories of reaction we investigated had perfect alignment between ICD 9/10 codes and blood bank specific diagnoses.Discussion: Multiple systemic challenges were identified that hinder effective reporting of TRAEs. Identifying factors causing inconsistent reporting between blood banks and EHRs is paramount to developing effective workability between these electronic systems, as well as across clinical and laboratory teams.blood transfusions, electronic health records, transfusion related adverse events This article's contents reflect the views of the authors and should not be construed to represent FDA's official views or policies.

Background The reported incidence of adverse reactions following Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) convalescent plasma (CCP) transfusion has generally been lower than expected based on the incidence of transfusion reactions that have been observed in studies of conventional plasma transfusion. This raises the concern for under‐reporting of adverse events in studies of CCP that rely on passive surveillance strategies. Materials and Methods Our institution implemented a protocol to actively identify possible adverse reactions to CCP transfusion. In addition, we retrospectively reviewed the charts of inpatients who received CCP at Stanford Hospital between May 13, 2020 and January 31, 2021. We determined the incidence of adverse events following CCP transfusion. Results A total of 49 patients received CCP. Seven patients (14%) had an increased supplemental oxygen requirement within 4 h of transfusion completion, including one patient who was intubated during the transfusion. An additional 11 patients (total of 18, 37%) had increased oxygen requirements within 24 h of transfusion, including 3 patients who were intubated. Six patients (12%) fulfilled criteria for transfusion‐associated circulatory overload (TACO). Conclusion Using an active surveillance strategy, we commonly observed adverse events following the transfusion of CCP to hospitalized patients. It was not possible to definitively determine whether or not these adverse events are related to CCP transfusion. TACO was likely over‐diagnosed given overlap with the manifestations of COVID‐19. Nevertheless, these results suggest that the potential adverse effects of CCP transfusion may be underestimated by reports from passive surveillance studies.

No abstract