Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online:125
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 4  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 28-32

On-site and off-site adverse donor reactions in voluntary whole blood donors: A study from a tertiary care oncology center

Department of Transfusion Medicine, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Priti D Desai
Department of Transfusion Medicine, Tata Memorial Hospital, Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/GJTM.GJTM_4_19

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The aim of this study was to analyze the frequency of on-site and off-site adverse donor reactions and its correlation with contributory factors if any. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted from October 2016 to November 2016. A total of 1000 voluntary whole blood (WB) donors who consented to participate in the study were contacted telephonically the next day of donation. Donors were asked a structured questionnaire and information was documented. Results: Of the 1000 voluntary WB donors, 948 responded to the phone calls. Of these 948, 79 (8.33%) donors experienced adverse reactions. Of the 79 donors, 33% (26/79) reactions occurred on-site, whereas 67% (53/79) reactions occurred off-site (P < 0.05). Of the total on-site reactions, 92% (24/26) were vasovagal reactions (VVRs) and 8% (2/26) were hematomas (P < 0.001). Of the total off-site reactions, 47% (23/53) were vasovagal and 53% (30/53) were hematomas. Of the 79 donors, 60% (47/79) experienced VVR and 40% (32/79) experienced hematomas. Of the 32 hematoma reactions, 94% (30/32) were noticed off-site, whereas 6% (2/30) occurred on-site (P < 0.001). Majority of hematomas took more than 7 days to resolve. Conclusion: Maximum reactions occurred off-site, and hence donor follow-up after the donor has left the donation site is important. Postdonation follow-up proves to be an efficient tool to acquire information about adverse donor reactions. The next day telephonic follow-up was helpful as donor recall of the off-site reactions was better, which otherwise would have gone unreported.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded163    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal