Comparison of a closed system and an open system for blood collection in feline donors

Abstract

Objectives This research aimed to evaluate the performance of a closed blood collection system and to compare it with an open system in terms of feasibility, tolerability by the donor, quality of blood collected and bacterial contamination. Methods Eight feline blood donors were prospectively and randomly subjected to both collection methods. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR) and blood pressure (BP) were evaluated before sedation, after sedation and after blood collection. The duration of the donation, the formation of a hematoma, and the degree of hemolysis and packed cell volume (PCV) of each blood unit were evaluated. Aliquot samples were aseptically collected from each unit and tested for bacterial contamination by culture and PCR on days 0, 14 and 28 of storage. Results There was no significant difference between collection methods for HR and RR at any time point. Before sedation, the mean systolic BP was significantly higher with the closed system (closed 169 mmHg, open 137 mmHg; P = 0.003). The average duration of collection was significantly shorter with the closed system (closed 3 mins 10 s, open 8 mins; P = 0.035); however, the prevalence of a successful blood collection with a single venipuncture and hematoma formation were not significantly different between systems. The mean unit PCV was significantly higher with the open system (closed 31%, open 34%; P = 0.026). On bacterial culture, 15/16 units were negative at all time points (closed 7; open 8). Using PCR, 5/16 units were positive for Ralstonia species for at least one time point (closed 3; open 2). Conclusions and relevance Our designed closed system appears to be well adapted to feline blood collection and was well tolerated by the donors, performing similarly to an open system, and could represent a valuable clinical device for the development of a feline blood bank, namely feline blood storage.

Association of Veterinary Hematology and Transfusion Medicine (AVHTM) Transfusion Reaction Small Animal Consensus Statement (TRACS) Part 2: Prevention and monitoring

“…Only one study (LOE 3, good) directly compared closed versus open systems in feline blood collection in terms of bacterial contamination in the blood units. 24 This study did not observe any difference in bacterial contamination between the two collection systems.…”

“…Many papers (LOE 3, fair to good) reported bacterial contamination of feline blood units collected both with open, semi‐closed, and closed systems. Most studies were not able to demonstrate the source of bacterial contamination 22,24–26 . Only one study found the source of contamination of feline whole blood (WB) units with Serratia marcescens , which was alcohol‐soaked cotton balls used during skin preparation and a saline solution used during venipuncture of donor cats 27 .…”

“…Therefore, the risk of bacterial contamination of feline blood units might be greater than in standard canine units, precluding storage of these blood products. Veterinary studies [19][20][21][22][24][25][26][27] have only evaluated bacterial contamination of blood units and not the presence of TTI (sepsis due to bacterial contamination of the blood) in feline recipients. Only one study (LOE 3, good) directly compared closed versus open systems in feline blood collection in terms of bacterial contamination in the blood units.…”

Association of Veterinary Hematology and Transfusion Medicine (AVHTM) Transfusion Reaction Small Animal Consensus Statement (TRACS). Part 1: Definitions and clinical signs

“…However, transfusion with a large load of endotoxin‐producing gram‐negative bacteria can cause rapid death in healthy individuals. In veterinary patients, the clinical outcome of transfusion of bacterial contaminated units has ranged from no reaction; 131,141,144 vomiting, collapse, diarrhea, icterus, panting, pyrexia/fever, abscess; 144 hypotensive shock syndrome; 149 and death. 144 In a case series of 15 Serratia marcescens contaminated units administered to 14 cats, 6 developed clinical signs of a transfusion reaction and 4 of these cats died.…”

2021 ISFM Consensus Guidelines on the Collection and Administration of Blood and Blood Products in Cats

“…Another closed feline blood collection system was recently evaluated that permits blood collection by suction using a vacuum chamber; this accelerated the process without being detrimental to the blood donor or collected blood, therefore optimising collection. 89 In addition, the study directly compared this closed system with an open system for evidence of bacterial contamination of the units, and did not observe any difference between the two collection systems. 89 In a separate study, blood units and blood products collected using open systems were stored successfully for 35 days without microbial growth, although all blood banking was performed by experienced staff and blood was collected with appropriate aseptic collection methods, processing and careful storage to prevent contamination, 90 which may have contributed to this result.…”