Download PDFPDF
Blood transfusions: time for a change in practice?
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Author response to 'Blood Transfusions: time for a change in practice?'
    • Karen Neoh, Specialist Registrar in Palliative Medicine St Gemma's Hospice, Leeds, UK
    • Other Contributors:
      • Michael Bennett, Professor of Palliative Medicine

    We read and agreed with several points in the editorial [1] that accompanied our main research paper about UK clinicians' views on blood transfusion practice [2]. We have additional responses to the editorial.

    We recognise the lack of evidence about red cell transfusion within palliative care, which is why we undertook the largest audit of transfusion practice to date [3]. We analysed 465 transfusion episodes over 3 months from 121 UK hospices. Patients were not usually investigated for the anaemia. Of those that were, a significant proportion would have benefited from B12, folate or iron supplements, although rarely used. Despite being at higher risk of transfusion-associated circulatory overload (TACO), risk-mitigation practices like weighing patients or restricting transfusion to one unit (before review), were only undertaken in 15% of patients. In terms of patient benefit only 83 (18%) had improvement maintained at 30 days; 142 (31%) <14 days, and 50 (11%) had none. 150 patients (32%) were dead at 30 days, over double the predicted number.

    While documented death rates and major morbidity from red cell transfusion are low in the general population, there is growing evidence of under recognition and under reporting. A study across 157 UK hospitals showed that 4.3% of inpatients >60 years had increasing respiratory distress post-transfusion, but only one-third diagnosed with TACO by the hospital were reported to the SHOT Haemovigilance Group [...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.