THE use of freshly donated blood in transfusions offers no major benefits to patients over the current practice of using older blood, a study suggests.
Blood given to patients that has been stored for around 21 days, which is the current standard, is as effective and safe as blood held for less than eight days before use, according to research led by Edinburgh University and the University of Ottawa in Canada.
It is the first study to show conclusively that there are no major benefits to patients from using fresher blood for transfusions.
Blood can be stored for up to 35 days under current UK safety regulations and up to 45 days in many other countries. However, there has been concern among experts that older blood may carry risks for patients compared with fresher supplies.
The Age of Blood Evaluation (ABLE) study looked at 2,500 anaemic patients in intensive care units in Canada and Europe.
Half of participants were given blood stored for less than eight days while the other group was transfused with cells stored for three weeks, which is current practice in the NHS and other countries.
At present, few patients receive blood units that are less than three weeks old.
The team found patients given fresh blood did not have an increased chance of survival compared with those given older blood, up to three months after treatment. The rate of common intensive care complications was also similar for both groups.
Professor Tim Walsh, of the University of Edinburgh's Critical Care Research Group, who led the UK arm of the trial, said: "This is the first time we've been able to conclusively show that the outcomes with fresher blood are no different than with the blood currently supplied by blood banks.
"It will be a great relief for doctors and blood transfusion services worldwide."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article