目的 分析银川地区单采献血者流失原因,制定回召策略。方法 对银川地区末次献血时间在2019年1月1日—2020年12月31日的1 498名单采献血者逐个致电回访,使用SPSS 26.0软件进行统计学分析,不同组间变量比较用χ²检验,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果 成功召回355人(23.7%),和未召回组比较,性别无统计学差异(P>0.05),各年龄段、民族、职业、文化程度、血型之间均有统计学差异(P<0.05)。18～24岁、汉族、国家企事业单位、研究生及以上学历人群回召率最高;随着年龄增长、文化程度降低,回召成功率下降。未召回原因中工作繁忙占比最大,其次为在外地、身体原因、亲友献血者、失联、学生毕业、对献血误解、停车不便。结论 不断优化、细化单采献血服务,让工作更加人性化,加大献血正面形象的宣传,不断创新,从而保留固定献血者。

Objective To analyze the causes of apheresis blood donors loss in Yinchuan area, and to work out the call-back strategy. Methods A total of 1 498 blood donors whose last blood donation time was between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2020 in Yinchuan area were called one by one. SPSS 26.0 software was used for statistical analysis. Variables between different groups were compared usingχ² test, and P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Three hundred and fifty-five people (23.7%) were successfully called back. Compared with the failed call-back group, there was no significant difference in gender (P>0.05), but there were significant differences in age, nationality, occupation, education level and blood type (P<0.05). People aged 18-24, with Han Nationality, working in national enterprises or institutions, or with graduate degree or above had the highest call-back rate; with the increase of age and the decrease of education level, the success rate of call-back decreased. Among the reasons for call-back failure, no free time accounted for the largest proportion, followed by being in other places, physical reasons, donors of relatives and friends, losing contact, graduated from school, misunderstanding of blood donation, and inconvenient parking. Conclusion We will continue to optimize and refine the apheresis blood donation service, make the work more humanized, expand the publicity of the positive image of blood donation, and innovate constantly, so as to retain the blood donors.

目的 探讨无偿献血者ABO血型正反定型初筛结果不一致的原因分析。方法 选取2019年6月1日—2020年11月30日本血站的无偿献血者样本,采用Metis150全自动血型分析仪进行ABO正反定型初筛。初筛结果正反定型不一致先进行试管法复核,结果仍不一致时送血型参比实验室做进一步确认,并对造成ABO血型正反定型不一致的原因进行分析。结果 44 808例无偿献血者样本中初筛结果ABO血型正反定型不一致134例,发生率为0.30%。导致ABO正反定型不一致原因为:因方法学不同可经盐水介质试管法复检确认65例(48.51%);吸取红细胞或血浆异常加样量不准确25例(18.66%);仪器判读错误4例(2.98%);血型参比实验室通过延长反应时间或改变反应温度确定因抗体缺失或减少22例(16.42%)、冷凝集素2例(1.49%);增加抗A1、抗AB、抗H血清和吸收放散试验确定亚型6例(4.48%)、抗原减少2例(1.49%);洗涤自身红细胞吸收放散后定型、吸收后血清反定型确定不规则抗体8例(5.97%)。40例血型参比实验ABO血型血清学检测结果为:O型21例(52.50%)、A型8例(20%)、B型7例(17.5%)、AB型4例(10.00%)。结论 ABO血型正反定型不一致的原因很复杂。严格规范操作,减少不规则抗体对结果的影响,防止弱亚型的漏检等有效措施确保临床输血的安全。

目的 分析献血者乙型肝炎病毒(HBV)核酸检测非重复反应性确认及追踪结果。方法 对1 200例于我站无偿献血者的血液样本进行非重复反应性确认,补充乙肝“两对半”检测,并对其部分单项核酸检测反应的患者予以回访结果追踪。结果 1 200份无偿献血血液样本单项核酸检测有反应性者150份(12.50%)。150份单项核酸检测有反应性样本经重新病毒核酸检测后,仍有58例样本有反应性(38.67%)、92例样本为非反应性(61.33%)。其中有18例献血者实际召回抽血,完成两次追踪,第一次追踪60~125天,第二次追踪间隔天数在160~356天,第一次追踪HBV DNA有反应(+)8例,第二次追踪仍存在反应(+);7例HBV DNA有反应者存在抗-HBc阳性(+)。核酸反应检测HBV-DNA阳性值10~17有37.25%,高于核酸反应检测值<10的4.17%(P<0.05)。结论 部分单项核酸检测反应无偿献血者存在一定的输血传播HBV风险,多为HBV隐匿性感染,此时需要重视其输血情况,屏蔽单项核酸反应性献血者。

Objective To analyze the results of nonrepetitive reactivity of HBV nucleic acid detection in blood donors. Methods 1 200 blood samples from our station were confirmed by nonrepetitive reaction, supplemented with the “two to half” test of hepatitis B, and some patients with single nucleic acid detection were followed up. Results One hundred and fifty samples (12.50%) were reactive in single nucleic acid detection in 1 200 blood samples. After the virus nucleic acid detection, 58 samples were reactive (38.67%), 92 were nonreactive (61.33%). 18 donors were actually recalled and drew blood, completed two tracking. The first tracking time was 60-125 days, the second time interval was 160-356 days. In the first tracking 8 cases had HBV DNA reaction (+) , which still had reaction in the second tracking; 7 HBV DNA positive donors had HBC antibody (+).The proportion of HBV-DNA positive with 10-17 value in mucleic acid reaction test(37.25%) was higher than that with value below 10(4.17%,P＜0.05). Conclusion Some donors with single nucleic acid detection reaction have a certain risk of transmission of HBV, most of them had hidden infection of HBV. At this time, we should pay attention to the blood transfusion and avoid the single nucleic acid reactive donors.

目的 探讨河源地区机采血小板固定献血者血小板抗原系统的基因多态性特征,为建立本地区机采血小板供血者库奠定基础。方法 采用PCR-SSP方法对100例机采血小板固定献血者进行血小板抗原HPA1～17系统基因分型。结果 HPA1～17基因中成多态性分布的等位基因是HPA2a、HPA3a、HPA5a、HPA15a,其频率分别为0.96、0.49、0.99、0.515。HPA-2、HPA-3、HPA-5、HPA-15系统存在aa、ab、bb 三种表型。HPA1a、HPA4a、HPA6a-14a、HPA16a-17a基因频率为1,呈单线性分布,未发现b基因。结论 河源地区血小板HPA-3系统不配合率最高(0.420),HPA-15系统次之。建立本地区机采血小板供血者库,为患者提供HPA相合的血小板,对减少临床血小板输注无效的发生具有重要意义。

Objective To study the polymorphism of human platelet antigens in fixed apheresis platelet donors in Heyuan area and to lay a foundation for the establishment of platelets donor bank. Methods PCR-SSP method was used to analyze HPA 1～17 genotype in 100 fixed platelet donors. Results The highest numbers of heterozygotes were HPA2a,HPA3a,HPA5a and HPA15a,with frequencies of 0.96,0.49,0.99 and 0.515,respectively. The frequencies of HPA1a,HPA4a,HPA6a-14a and HPA16a-17a genes were 1,which showed a single linear distribution. Conclusion HPA-3 system were the highest mismatch rate (0.420),followed by HPA-15 system. It is great significance to establish a local platelet donor bank and provide HPA compatible platelets for patients.

目的 探索连续捐献机采血小板献血者血小板、白细胞和红细胞计数变化情况。方法 以2016年1月1日—2018年9月30日年期间首次献血且连续血小板捐献量在10 U及以上的849人为研究对象进行回顾性研究,采用同一群体的配对t检验来评估第一次与最后一次血小板、红细胞及白细胞计数的变化情况。将采用有序多分类Logistic回归分析调查期间的血小板捐献量对献血者外周血细胞计数的影响。结果 配对t检验表明,外周血PLt有增加趋势(t=-8.58,P<0.001);白细胞总体来说有减少趋势(t=5.348,P<0.001);红细胞无改变趋势(t=0.515,P=0.607);有序多分类Logistic回归分析结果显示:PLt的变化值与献血者年龄、性别以及第一次与最后一次献血的间隔期无关系,P＞0.05;但是与血小板捐献量41 U及以上比起来,血小板捐献量在≤30 U的献血者,血小板计数增加的可能性相对较少(血小板捐献量为10～20 U,χ²=13.737,P<0.001;血小板捐献量为21～30 U,χ²=7.491,P=0.006);WBC的变化值与献血者年龄、性别及献血间隔期无关,P＞0.05,但是与血小板捐献量41 U及以上比起来,血小板捐献量在10～20 U的献血者,白细胞计数增加的可能性相对较大,(OR=1.720,95%CI=1.136~2.605,P=0.010) RBC的变化值与献血者年龄、性别无关(P＞0.05);第一次与最后一次献血间隔期越长,红细胞计数增加的可能性就越大,(OR=1.005,95%CI=1.000~1.009,P=0.030);但是与血小板捐献量并无关系。结论 血小板捐献间隔期不少于2周间隔期的连续血小板献血者,其外周血PLt和RBC在一定时间内变化情况会受到血小板捐献量的影响而发生增加和减少的变化,但均在正常范围内波动。

Objective To explore the changes of platelet, white blood cell and red blood cell counts of long-term platelet blood donors. Methods A retrospective study was conducted on 849 platelet blood donors who donated for the first time and continuously donated amounts to 10U plateletor or more from January 1, 2016 to September 30, 2018.The paired t test of the same group was used to evaluate the changes of platelet, red blood cell and white blood cell counts between the first time and the last time donation during the study period. Ordinal multinomial logistic regression was conducted to analyze the effects of platelet donation on the peripheral blood cell count of the donor during the survey. Results Paired t-test result showed that there was a increase in PLt (t=-8.58, P<0.000 1);a decrease in WBC(t=5.348, P<0.000 1); and no significant change in RBC (t=0.515, P=0.607).The results of ordinal multinomial logistic regression analysis showed that the change in PLt had no relationship with age, sex, and interval between the first and last blood donation, P>0.05. Compared with donors who donated 41U or above,the possibility of an increase in platelet count was relatively small for those who donated 30U or below(platelet donation amount 10~20U,χ²=13.737,P<0.000 1;platelet donation amount 21～30U,χ²=7.491,P=0.006). There was no relationship between age, gender, and blood donation interval and WBC changes, P>0.05. Compared with donors who donated 41U or above, WBC was more likely to increase for those who donated 10～20 U (OR=1.720, 95%CI=1.136~2.605, P=0.010).RBC changes had nothing to do with age, gender and platelet donation amount of the blood donor, P> 0.05; the longer the interval between the first and last blood donation took, the more likely the red blood cell count increased, (OR=1.005, 95%CI=1.000~1.009, P=0.030). Conclusion For continuous platelet donors with platelet donation intervals of no less than 2 weeks, platelet donation amount will affect the peripheral blood counts,and all the blood conuts are within the normal range.

目的 分析酶联免疫法(ELISA)联合核酸检测技术(NAT)在献血者血液筛查和输血残余风险分析中的应用价值。方法 选取2019年1月—8月惠州市中心血站2 514例无偿献血者为研究对象,采集血液标本,分别应用两种不同ELISA试剂盒检测乙肝病毒表面抗原(HBsAg)、丙肝抗体(抗-HCV)、艾滋病抗体(抗-HIV),并以核酸扩增技术(NAT)进行HBV DNA、HCV RNA、HIV RNA检测,对ELISA检测阴性,而NAT检测阳性的标本进行进一步追踪分析。结果 ELISA检测结果显示27例阳性,阳性率1.07%,其中2例同时HBsAg阳性、丙肝抗体(抗-HCV)阳性。NAT技术检测结果显示12例阳性,阳性率0.48%,其中1例同时HBV DNA阳性、HCV RNA阳性。27例ELISA检测阳性中,10例经NAT技术检测证实为阳性,17例为阴性;2 487例ELISA检测阴性中,2例NAT技术检测HBV DNA阳性,2 485例为阴性。对2例ELISA检测阴性、NAT技术检测阳性者进行随访追踪证实HbsAg阳性。结论 2次ELISA筛查献血者血液仍然存在漏检误检风险,存在输血残余风险,联合应用NAT技术能够降低输血残余风险。

目的 探讨利用微信群保留机采血小板无偿献血者的应用效果。方法 从本血站穿越安全输血标准化管理系统中调取2015年1月1日—2018年12月31日捐献机采血小板无偿献血者信息,根据初次捐献机采血小板后是否自愿加入机采微信群的机采血小板无偿献血者分为实验组和对照组,统计分析各组机采血小板无偿献血者重复献血 2～3 次和≥4 次以上机采血小板无偿献血者人数及平均献血次数。结果 2015—2018年间机采血小板采集量、献血人数及平均献血次数逐年上升;重复献血 2～3 次和≥4 次以上人数,实验组均高于对照组,机采血小板平均献血次数实验组均高于对照组,其中2016年和2018年实验组机采血小板平均献血次数高于对照组(P<0.05)。结论 通过机采微信群预约与管理机采血小板无偿献血者可提高机采血小板招募的工作效率,有效扩大和稳定机采血小板无偿献血者固定队伍。

目的 探讨影响初次机采血小板献血者再次捐献的相关因素,为制定机采献血者保留策略提供依据。方法 选择2016年1月1日—2016年12月31日在广州血液中心首次成功捐献机采血小板的13 899例献血者为研究对象,分析每个献血者献血时性别、年龄、文化程度、是否发生献血不良反应与下一年度是否再次捐献机采血小板的相关性。结果 男性献血者再次捐献率(10.68%)高于女性献血者再次捐献率(8.94%),差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01);献血者年龄18～25岁组再次捐献率最高为12.86%,46～60岁组再次捐献率最低为6.46%,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.001);献血者文化程度高中或职中组再次捐献率最高为11.23%,本科或以上组再次捐献率最低为8.94%,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.001);未发生不良反应献血者再次捐献率(10.37%)高于发生不良反应献血者再次捐献率(5.56%),差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01)。结论 男性、年龄较小、文化程度较低和未发生献血不良反应的献血者更愿意返回再次捐献机采血小板,对这部分献血者采取针对性保留措施,有利于建立起一支固定捐献机采血小板的献血者队伍。

Objective To explore the related factors affecting the re-donation of the first apheresis platelet donors, and to provide a basis for the retention strategy. Methods A total of 13 899 blood donors who successfully donated apheresis platelets for the first time in Guangzhou Blood Center from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 were selected as subjects. The correlation among gender, age, education level, adverse reactions of blood donation and whether platelet collection was re-donated in the next year was analyzed. Results Re-donation rate of male blood donors (10.68%) was higher than that of female blood donors (8.94%). The difference was statistically significant (P<0.01). Re-donation rate of blood donors aged 18～25 was the highest 12.86%, and that of 46～60 was the lowest 6.46%. The difference was significant (P<0.001). Re-donation rate of high school or vocational college blood donors was the highest 11.23%. The lowest re-donation rate was 8.94% in the undergraduate group or above, and the difference was statistically significant (P< 0.001). The re-donation rate of donors without adverse reactions (10.37%) was higher than that of donors with adverse reactions (5.56%). The difference was statistically significant (P<0.01). Conclusion Male, younger, less educated and no adverse reactions to blood donation are more willing to return to donate platelet again. Targeting these donors for reserve measure will conducive to the establishment of a fixed platelet donor team.

目的 分析无偿献血者丙型肝炎病毒核酸（HCV RNA）、丙型肝炎病毒抗体（抗-HCV）及丙氨酸氨基转移酶（ALT）检测结果之间的相关性。方法 采用惠州市中心血站2016年1月—2017年2月间采集的350例无偿献血者的抗-HCV阳性血液标本,应用速率法对其ALT水平进行测定;应用荧光定量聚合酶链反应（FQ-PCR）检测法对HCV RNA水平进行检测,并对抗-HCV检测中S/CO值范围进行分组,分别为A（1.0~3.79）、B（3.80~4.99）、C（≥5.00）三组,观察S/CO值与HCV RNA阳性率之间的关系,进一步反应HCV RNA与抗-HCV之间的关系。结果 350例抗-HCV阳性标本阳性率为59.14%,在350例抗-HCV阳性标本进行HCV检测中,HCV RNA阳性患者ALT检测异常率为2.41%,HCV RNA阴性患者ALT检测异常率为1.4%,差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）,HCV RNA阳性患者的ALT均值明显比HCV RNA阴性患者高（P<0.05）,A组HCV阳性率为5.26%,B组HCV阳性率为75.12%,C组HCV阳性率为56.94%,A、B组之间比较（P<0.05）,A、C组之间比较（P<0.05）,B、C组之间比较（P<0.05）,阳性患者的年龄比阴性患者高（P<0.05）,阳性患者和阴性患者的性别因素无差异（P>0.05）。结论 HCV RNA阳性率和抗-HCV中S/CO值之间存在相关性,抗-HCV阳性献血者ALT异常率和HCV RNA之间无相关性,且HCV RNA与感染献血者的年龄之间存在相关性。

目的 探讨机采血小板献血者流失原因,为建立一支稳固的机采血小板献血者队伍提供参考。方法 选择2009年1月1日—2012年12月31日河源市中心血站首次机采血小板献血者共382例为研究对象,根据其首次机采血小板献血后3年内是否再次参加机采血小板献血分为实验组和对照组,分别对研究对象进行电话回访调查。结果 3年内未再次参加血小板献血流失者118例,总流失率为30.89%;不同献血动机组流失率差异有统计学意义 (χ²= 18.552,P=0.000),其中动机不明确组流失率(52.49%)最高,寻求社会荣誉组流失率(15.79%)最低。发生过献血反应组(63.64%)流失率显著高于未发生献血反应组流失率(26.63%),两组间差异有统计学意义(χ²=8.501,P=0.004);对献血过程不满意组流失率(39.77%)显著高于满意组流失率(28.23%),两组间差异有统计学意义(χ²=16.413,P=0.000);认为机采时间过长组机采血小板献血者流失率(49.40%)显著高于不认为机采时间过长组流失率为(25.75%),两组间差异有统计学意义(χ²=17.014,P=0.000)。健康状况(体检结果)不合格组流失率(43.84%)显著高于合格组流失率(27.83%),两组间差异有统计学意义(χ²=9.022,P=0.030)。媒体(或网络)负面的宣传与献血者是否方便对机采血小板献血者流失率的影响不显著(χ²=1.579,P=0.209;χ²=2.130,P=0.144)。结论 机采血小板献血者流失主要与献血动机、献血过程感受以及自身健康等因素有关。