Adverse reactions to blood donation: A descriptive study of 3520 blood donors in a Nigerian tertiary hospital

3Citations
Citations of this article
47Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: The occurrence of adverse reactions to blood donation significantly hampers donor retention and negatively impacts on the universal availability of adequate numbers of blood donor units. Objective: To analyze the spectrum and prevalence of adverse reactions in blood donors in a tertiary hospital-based blood bank in Nigeria. Subjects and Methods: The details of 3520 blood donors who presented for donation over a 12 months period were retrieved from the departmental archives for analysis. These included sociodemographic information, type of donor, type and frequency of adverse reactions to blood donation. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) computer software. Descriptive and inferential statistics were employed to represent the distribution of donor characteristics (as percentages) and compare reaction rates by gender and severity, respectively. Results: The prevalence of adverse reactions to blood donation was (56/3520) 1.60%; this occurred more frequently in male and family replacement donors (55.35% and 100.0%, respectively). The spectrum of donor adverse reactions included anxiety 25 (44.64%), generalized body weakness 11 (19.64%), hematoma 10 (17.86%), fainting 5 (8.93%), and vomiting 5 (8.93%). Vasovagal reactions were the most frequent adverse reaction encountered among the donors (46/56; 82.14%). Conclusion: Vasovagal reactions are common adverse phenomena in our blood donor set; this has implications on transfusion safety and blood donor retention.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

John, C., Theodora, U., Gloria, A., & Chika, E. (2017). Adverse reactions to blood donation: A descriptive study of 3520 blood donors in a Nigerian tertiary hospital. Medical Journal of Dr. D.Y. Patil University, 10(1), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-2870.197894

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free