4.5 Article

Trial-related blood sampling and red blood cell transfusions in preterm infants

Journal

ACTA PAEDIATRICA
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/apa.16948

Keywords

anaemia of prematurity; blood sampling; prematurity; red blood cell transfusion

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to investigate whether trial-related blood sampling increases the risk of later red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in very preterm infants. The results showed that trial-related blood sampling had no impact on the need for RBC transfusion.
Aim: To determine if trial-related blood sampling increases the risk of later red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in very preterm infants, we compared the volume of clinical-and trial-related blood samples, in a specific trial and correlated to subsequent RBC transfusion. Methods: For 193 very preterm infants, participating in the FortiColos trial (NCT03537365), trial-related blood volume drawn was in accordance with ethical considerations established by the European Commission. Medical records were reviewed to assess the number and accumulated volume (mL/kg) of blood samples (both clinical-and trial-related). Data were compared with the need of RBC transfusions during the first 28 days of life. Results: Mean (SD) gestational age and birth weight was 28 +/- 1 weeks and 1168 +/- 301 g. In total, 11% of total blood volume was drawn for sampling (8.1 +/- 5.1 mL/kg) and trial-related sampling accounted for 1.6 +/- 0.6 mL/kg. Trial-related blood sampling had no impact on RBC transfusion (p = 0.9). Conclusion: Clinical blood sampling in very preterm infants is associated with blood loss and subsequent need for RBC transfusions. In a specific trial requiring blood samples, we found no additional burden of trial-related blood sampling. The study suggests that trial-related sampling is safe if European criteria are followed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available