Abstract

BACKGROUND Primary culture alone was a bacterial risk control strategy intended to facilitate interdiction of contaminated platelets (PLTs). A September 2019 FDA guidance includes secondary testing options to enhance safety. Our objective was to use meta-analysis to determine residual contamination risk after primary culture using secondary culture and rapid testing. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS A December 2019 literature search identified articles on PLT bacterial detection rates using primary culture and a secondary testing method. We used meta-analysis to estimate secondary testing detection rates after a negative primary culture. We evaluated collection method, sample volume, sample time, and study date as potential sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS The search identified 6102 articles; 16 were included for meta-analysis. Of these, 12 used culture and five used rapid testing as a secondary testing method. Meta-analysis was based on a total of 103 968 components tested by secondary culture and 114 697 by rapid testing. The residual detection rate using secondary culture (DR(SC) ) was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.24-0.6) per 1000 components, while residual detection rate using rapid testing (DR(RT) ) was 0.09 (95% CI, 0.01-0.25) per 1000 components. Primary culture detection rate was the only statistically significant source of heterogeneity. CONCLUSION We evaluated bacterial detection rates after primary culture using rapid testing and secondary culture. These results provide a lower and upper bound on real-world residual clinical risk because these methods are designed to detect high-level exposures or any level of exposure, respectively. Rapid testing may miss some harmful exposures and secondary culture may identify some clinically insignificant exposures.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Septic transfusion reactions are a principal cause of transfusion-related mortality. The frequency of detectable bacterial contamination is greater in platelets compared to other blood components because platelets are stored at room temperature. Most strategies outlined in the September 2019 FDA guidance require both aerobic culture (AC) and anaerobic culture (AnC) testing. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in an effort to provide the best available estimate of the effectiveness of AnC. MATERIALS AND METHODS Our analysis was performed according to published guidelines. Broad and context-specific meta-analyses of bacterial detection rates in platelets by AnC were performed to assess the practical effectiveness of AnC as a risk control measure. RESULTS Seven studies with a total of 1 767 014 tested platelet components were included for analysis. With exclusion of positives due to Cutibacterium/Propionibacterium species and redundancy due to AC results, AnC detected 0·06 contamination events per thousand (EPT) components tested, twofold lower than the AC (0·12 EPT). CONCLUSION Excluding Cutibacterium/Propionibacterium species, AnC detects occasional bacterial contamination events that are not detected by AC (~1 in 17 000 platelet components).