title: The safety profile of automated collections: an analysis of more than 1 million collections.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Recent technology allows for the collection of 2-unit red cells (RBCs) and single-unit RBCs plus plasma or platelets (PLTs).
  
  
  METHODS
  With a common definition of adverse events, 1,023,682 whole-blood collections were evaluated and compared with 249,154 two-unit apheresis RBC collections, 40,870 single-apheresis RBC collections, and 90,082 apheresis PLT collections.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The data show that manual whole-blood collections have a low incidence of moderate and severe reactions (47.1 per 10,000 collections, 0.47%). Single-unit RBCs collected by apheresis have the same safety profile (37.44 per 10,000 collections, p > 0.20). Double-RBC collections by apheresis and plateletpheresis have a significantly lower reaction rate (15.65 per 10,000 collections, p < 0.00005; and 14.84 per 10,000 collections, p < 0.00005, respectively).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  It is concluded that automated collections are safe or safer than manual whole-blood collections. There should be few concerns when procedures are performed according to manufacturer's instructions.
authors.affiliation: United Blood Services, Arizona Region, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA. twiltbank@bloodsystems.org
authors.forename: Thomas B
authors.initials: TB
authors.lastname: Wiltbank
authors.forename: Gerald F
authors.initials: GF
authors.lastname: Giordano
mesh_terms: D001331:Automation / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D001782:Blood Donors; D016238:Cytapheresis / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D004912:Erythrocytes / Q000166:cytology; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012449:Safety / Q000706:statistics & numerical data