TRANSFUSION MEDICINE: IS ITS FUTURE SECURE?
“Transfusion medicine will
continue to be a little like walking through a tropical rainforest, where the
known paths are clear but still require careful navigation, and new and unseen threats
may still lurk around the next corner to trap the unwary.” –Ian M. Franklin,
professor of transfusion medicine.
After the worldwide AIDS epidemic
cast the spotlight on blood in the 1980’s, efforts to eliminate its “unseen
threats” intensified. Still, huge obstacles remain. In June 2005, the World
Health Organization acknowledged: “The chance of receiving a safe transfusion …
varies enormously from one country to another.” Why?
In many lands there are no
nationally coordinated programs to ensure safety standards for the collection,
testing, and transport of blood and blood products. Sometimes blood supplies
are even stored dangerously –in poorly maintained domestic refrigerators and
picnic boxes! Without safety standards in place, patients can be adversely
affected by the blood drawn from someone who lives hundreds –if not thousands
–of kilometers away.
DISEASE-FREE BLOOD –A MOVING TARGET
Some countries claim that their
blood supply has never been safer. Yet, there are still reasons for caution. A
“Circular of Information” prepared jointly by three U.S. blood agencies states
on its first page: “WARNING: Because whole blood and blood components are made
from human blood, they may carry a risk of transmitting infectious agents, e.g,
viruses … Careful donor selection and available laboratory tests do not
eliminate the hazard.”
Not without reason does Peter
Carolan, the senior officer of the International Federation of Red Cross and
Crescent Societies, say: “Absolute guarantees on blood supplies can never be
given.” He adds: “There will always be new infections for which at that moment
there is no test.”
What if a new infectious agent
were to appear –one that, like AIDS, remains in an undetectable carrier state
for a long time and is readily transmitted by means of blood? Speaking at a
medical conference in Prague, Czech Republic, in April 2005, Dr. Harvey G.
Klein of the U.S. National Institutes of Health called that prospect sobering.
He added: “The blood component collectors would be scarcely better prepared to
interdict a transfusion-transmitted epidemic than they were during the early
days of AIDS.”
MISTAKES AND TRANSFUSION REACTIONS
What are the greatest transfusion-related
threats to patients in developed countries? Errors and immunologic reactions.
Regarding a 2001 Canadian study, the Globe and Mail newspaper reported that
thousands of blood transfusions involved near-misses because of “collecting
blood samples from the wrong the patient, mislabeling samples and requesting
blood for the wrong patient.” Such mistakes cost the lives of at least 441
people in the United States between 1995 and 2001.
Those who receive blood from
another person face risks essentially similar to those undergoing an organ
transplant. Immune responses tend to reject foreign tissue. In some cases,
blood transfusions can actually prevent the activation of natural immune
responses. Such immunosuppression leaves the patient vulnerable to postoperative
infections and to viruses that had previously been inactive. It is no wonder
that Professor Ian M. Franklin, quoted at the outset of this article,
encourages clinicians to “think once, twice and three times before transfusing
patients.”
EXPERTS SPEAK OUT
Armed with such knowledge, a
growing number of health-care workers are taking a more critical look at
transfusion medicine. Reports the reference work Dailey’s Notes on Blood: “Some
physicians maintain that allogeneic blood [blood from another human] is a dangerous
drug and that its use would be banned if it were evaluated by the same
standards as other drugs.”
Late in 2004, Professor Bruce
Spiess said the following about transfusing a primary blood component into
patients undergoing heart surgery: “There are few if any [medical] articles
that support transfusion actually improving patient outcome.” In fact, he
writes that many such transfusions “may do more harm than good in virtually
every instance except trauma,” increasing “the risk of pneumonia, infections,
heart attacks and strokes.”
It surprises many to learn that
the standards for administering blood are not nearly as uniform as one would
expect. Dr. Gabriel Pedraza recently reminded his colleagues in Chile that
“transfusion is a poorly defined practice,” one that makes it “difficult to … apply
universally accepted guidelines.” No wonder Brian McClelland, director of
Edinburgh and Scotland Blood Transfusion Service, asks doctors to “remember
that a transfusion is a transplant and therefore not a trivial decision.” He
suggests that doctors ponder the question, “If this was myself or my child,
would I agree to the transfusion?”
In truth, more than a few
health-care workers express themselves as did one hematologist, “We
transfusion-medicine specialists do not like to get or to give blood.” If this
is the feeling among some well-trained individuals in the medical community,
how should patients feel?
WILL MEDICINE CHANGE?
‘If transfusion medicine is so fraught with
dangers,’ you might wonder, ‘why is blood still used so extensively,
particularly when there are alternatives?’ One reason is that many doctors are
simply reluctant to change treatment methods or are unaware of therapies that
are currently used as alternative to transfusions. According to an article in
the journal Transfusion, “physicians make transfusion decisions based upon
their past teaching, enculturation, and ‘clinical judgment.’”
A surgeon’s skills also make a
difference. Dr. Beverley Hunt, of London, England, writes that “blood loss is
highly variable between surgeons, and there is increasing interest in training
surgeons in adequate surgical haemostasis [methods to stop bleeding].”
Others claim that costs of
transfusion alternatives are too high, although reports are emerging that prove
otherwise. Many doctors, however, would agree with medical director Dr. Michael
Rose, who says: “Any patient who receives bloodless medicine is, in essence,
the recipient of the highest quality surgery that is possible.”
DEATH BY TRALI
Transfusion-related acute lung
injury [TRALI], first reported in the early 1990’s, is a life-threatening
immune reaction following a blood transfusion. It is now known that TRALI
causes hundreds of deaths each year. Experts, however, suspect that the numbers
are much higher, as many health-care workers do not recognize the symptoms.
Although it is not clear what
causes the reaction, according to the magazine New Scientist, the blood that
causes it “appears to come primarily from people who have been exposed to a
variety of blood groups in the past, such as … people who have had multiple
transfusions.” One report states that TRALI is now near the top of the list for
causes of transfusion-related deaths in the United States and Britain, making
it “a bigger problem for blood banks than high-profile diseases like HIV.”
THE COMPOSITION OF BLOOD
Blood donors generally give whole
blood. In many cases, though, they donate plasma. While some countries
transfuse whole blood, more commonly, blood is separated into its primary
components before it is tested and used in transfusion medicine. Note the four
primary components, their function, and the percentage of total blood volume
each represents.
PLASMA: constitutes between 52
and 62 percent of whole blood. It is a strawcolored fluid in which blood cells,
proteins, and other substances are suspended and transported. Water constitutes
91.5 percent of plasma. Protein, from which plasma fractions are derived,
constitute 7 percent of the plasma [including albumins, which make up about 4
percent of the plasma; globulins, about 3 percent; and fibrinogen, less than 1
percent]. The remaining 1.5 percent of plasma is made up of other substances,
such as nutrients, hormones, respiratory gases, electrolytes, vitamins, and
nitrogenous wastes.
Just as blood plasma can be a
source of various fractions, other primary components can be processed to
isolate smaller parts, or fractions. For example, hemoglobin is a fraction of
the red blood cell.
WHITE BLOOD CELLS [LEUKOCYTES]
constitute less than 1 percent of whole blood. These attack and destroy
potentially harmful foreign matter.
PLATELETS [THROMBOCYTES]
constitute less than 1 percent of whole blood. These form clots, blocking blood
from exiting wounds.
RED BLOOD CELLS [ERYTHROCYTES]
constitute between 38 and 48 percent of whole blood. These cells keep tissue
alive by bringing oxygen to it and taking carbon away.
FRACTIONATION: THE USE OF
BLOOD’S LESSER INGREDIENTS IN MEDICINE
Science and technology make it
possible to identify and extract elements from blood through process called
FRACTIONATION. To illustrate: Seawater, which is 96.5 percent water, can be
divided through fractionation processes in order to capture the remaining
substances present, such as magnesium, bromine, and, of course, salt.
Likewise, blood plasma, which
makes up more than half the volume of whole blood, is over 90 percent water and
can be processed to harvest fractions including protein, such as albumin,
fibrinogen, and various globulins.
As part of a treatment or
therapy, a doctor might recommend concentrated amounts of a plasma fraction. An
example of such is protein-rich cryoprecipitate, which is obtained by freezing and
then thawing plasma.
This insoluble portion of plasma
is rich in coagulation factors and is usually given to patients to stop
bleeding. Other treatments may involve a product that contains a blood
fraction, whether in trace amounts or as a primary ingredients.
Some plasma proteins are used in
routine injections that can help to increase immunity after exposure to
infectious agents. Nearly all blood fractions being used in medicine
applications consist of the protein found in blood plasma.
According to Science News,
“scientists have identified only several hundred of the estimated thousands of
proteins typically coursing through a person’s bloodstream.” As understanding
of blood grows in the future, new products derived from these proteins may
emerge.
Without question, there is a
measure of truth in that quote. Blood is essential to all human life. It is a
precious resource. Are you convinced, though, that it is safe and wise for
humans to share that fluid for medical purposes?
As we have learnt, worldwide
safety standards are highly variables, and treatments with blood are riskier
than many assume. Furthermore, physicians differ widely in their use of blood
because of education, skills, and viewpoints.
Yet, many are increasingly
cautious about transfusing blood. A significant and growing number of doctors
are showing a preference for medical treatments that avoid the use of blood.
That brings us back to a question
posed at the outset of the article. Just what is it that makes blood so
valuable? If the medical use of blood is increasingly questionable, is there
another purpose that blood fulfills?
WHAT ARE HEMOGLOBIN-BASED OXYGEN CARRIERS?
Within each red blood cell are
some 300 million hemoglobin molecules. Hemoglobin represents about one third of
the volume of a mature red cell. Each molecule contains the protein globin and
a pigment called HEME –which includes an iron atom.
When a red blood cell passes
through the lungs, oxygen molecules penetrate the cell and attach themselves to
hemoglobin molecules. Seconds later, the oxygen is discharged into body tissue,
sustaining the life of the cells.
Some manufacturers now process hemoglobin,
releasing it from human or bovine red blood cells. The extracted hemoglobin is
then filtered to remove impurities, chemically modified and purified, mixed
with a solution, and packaged.
The end product –not yet approved
for use in most countries –is called a HEMOGLOBIN-BASED OXYGEN CARRIER, or
HBOC. Since the heme is responsible for the rich red color of blood, a unit of
HBOC looks just like a unit of blood cells, the primary component from which it
is taken.
Unlike red blood cells, which must
be refrigerated and discarded after a few weeks, the HBOC can be stored at room
temperature and used months later. And since the cell membrane with its unique
antigens is gone, severe reactions due to mismatched blood types pose no
threat.
However, compared with other
blood fractions, the HBOC presents more challenges to conscience. Why? As long
as the HBOC is derived from blood, there are two objections that may be raised.
One, the HBOC carries out the key function of a primary component of blood, the
red cells. Two, hemoglobin, from which the HBOC is derived, makes up a
significant portion of that component. Regarding this and similar products,
then, conscientious people face a very serious decision
Comments
Post a Comment