Peer-reviewed veterinary case report
Acute transfusion reactions in dogs given leukoreduced or regular
By Radulescu, Sinziana Maria et al.·Published in Journal of veterinary internal medicine·2021·Department of Clinical Sciences and Services, United Kingdom·View original on PubMed →
PetCaseFinder translated the abstract of this peer-reviewed paper into plain English so pet owners can read it. We do not publish original research — every detail traces back to the citation above. How we work →
Original publication title: Randomized double-blinded clinical trial on acute transfusion reactions in dogs receiving leukoreduced versus nonleukoreduced packed red blood cells.
- Species:
- dog
Plain-English summary
A group of 194 dogs received blood transfusions, either leukoreduced (LR) or nonleukoreduced (N-LR) packed red blood cells, to see if one type caused fewer reactions or better outcomes. Out of these dogs, 16 experienced mild allergic reactions or fever after the transfusion, but there was no significant difference between the two groups. Both types of blood transfusions resulted in similar increases in packed cell volume (PCV), which measures red blood cells in the blood. Overall, there was no clear benefit of using leukoreduced blood over nonleukoreduced blood in terms of transfusion reactions or recovery.
People also search for: dog blood transfusion reactions · leukoreduced blood for dogs · dog fever after blood transfusion
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Leukoreduction of blood products is commonly performed in human medicine, but its effect on outcome or incidence of transfusion reactions (TRs) in dogs is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively evaluate the incidence of acute TRs in, and the outcome of, dogs receiving either leukoreduced (LR) or nonleukoreduced (N-LR) packed red blood cells (PRBC). ANIMALS: Dogs (n = 194) administered PRBC between August 2017 and June 2020. METHODS: Prospective randomized double-blinded clinical trial. Dogs were randomized to receive either LR or N-LR PRBC and clinicians, nurses and investigators were blinded to the group allocations. The incidence of TRs, change in PCV, hospitalization duration, and survival to discharge were recorded. RESULTS: Out of the 194 dogs, 96 received LR and 98 received N-LR PRBCs. The mean 12-hour change in PCV value was +9.22% (SD 5.27%) for dogs that received N-LR and +10.69% (SD 6.44%) for dogs that received LR PRBC (effect size 0.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.02 to 0.55), which was not significantly different (P = .08). TRs were documented in 16/194 (8.24%) dogs, with 1/194 (0.51%) being a mild allergic reaction, while 15/194 (7.73%) had suspected febrile nonhemolytic TRs (FNHTRs). FNHTR incidence was not significantly different between the LR (6/96, 6.25%, 95% CI 2.8-13.56) and N-LR (9/98, 9.18%, 95% CI 4.92-17.11) groups (P = .81). Of the 156 dogs that survived to discharge, 80/156 received N-LR PRBC and 76/156 received LR PRBC which was not significantly different (P = .66). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPORTANCE: A clinical advantage of using LR over N-LR PRBC in terms of TRs and increase in PCV after transfusion was not detected.
Find similar cases for your pet
PetCaseFinder finds other peer-reviewed reports of pets with the same symptoms, plus a plain-English summary of what was tried across them.
Search related cases →Original publication on PubMed: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33960540/