Banked Blood May Not Be As Effective As Hoped

URSpider alerts us to two separate research reports published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences pointing to the rapid breakdown of nitric oxide in donated blood as a reason why such blood loses its ability to transfer oxygen, and is sometime implicated in problems such as strokes and heart attacks. Nitric oxide depletion is significant after 3 hours of storage; yet current guidelines allow for storing donated blood for up to 42 days. The article notes: "Several of the researchers, including Stamler, have consulting and/or equity relationships with Nitrox/N30, a company developing nitric oxide based therapies."

pros and cons

[LiquidCoooled]

Let me weigh up the situation here:

Die due to running out of blood.
Survive because someone donated blood.

I realise that the length of time is a factor and you want the freshest possible, but beggars can't be choosers.

Re:pros and cons

[AusIV]

Not only that, we've been transfusing blood for decades. If guidelines allow for storing blood up to 42 days, and people survive after being given 41 day old blood, I fail to see why the requirements should be changed.

Blood doping?

[drunken_boxer777]

So am I to believe that all of a sudden blood doping isn't as effective either?

Perhaps the blood is not as efficient as it could be in transferring oxygen, but I would think that it is still pretty damn useful.

Re:pros and cons

[Vellmont]

Let me weigh up the situation here:

Die due to running out of blood.
Survive because someone donated blood.


Or the third possibility, which this article is likely addressing:

Receive a nitric oxide injection that's packaged along with the blood in addition to the blood transfusion, and have an even better chance of surviving than blood alone.

Why do you think there's only two possibilities?

Re:pros and cons

[nursegirl]

Actually, the situation is closer to:

1) Potentially die due to running out of blood (although many blood recipients aren't at death's door when they receive transfusions)
2) Potentially die post-transfusion from a heart attack or stroke
3) Potentially receive added nitric oxide, once study of this matter has moved forwards.

Shouldn't the goal of medical research be that we don't have medical beggars, but instead that anyone can have the best possible options?

Possible implications on blood storage

[WillAffleckUW]

1. This is a study with participants highly linked to a firm that makes money off of adding NO to blood products. They have financial and other incentives to find a "lack" of NO in stored blood.

2. As with any study, an independent study should be done to see if this is verifiable and repeatable. This should be done by a lab that is not financially or otherwise linked to the NO additive firm aforementioned.

3. The other thing to look at is method of storage, temperature, and other conditions - did they conform to current standards, did they vary these elements, and was this independently audited?

Re:pros and cons

[virtualXTC]

I imagine the company being consulted (being a nitric oxide vendor) would is actually pushing for the blood be infused with nitric oxide.
I don't see injections of nitric oxide being pushed as, the nitric oxide pathway is the same one that Viagra works on.

Re:Got a lot to learn

[moderatorrater]

I agree with the beginning of your post, but not the conclusion. Yes, we've been messing with blood transfusions for centuries, but in that time we've learned about blood types (thus explaining the mysterious deaths of a large portion of those receiving transfusions), learned to test for diseases, store and maintain blood supplies, and have the donation down to a system where I can do it at lunch and go back to work. Now, we may even be able to do a hybrid of synthetic/natural blood that's more effective than the stored blood would be otherwise; that's quite a feat.

Your concluding that scientists are just pissing in the wind is like concluding that car manufacturers are just pissing in the wind because of the recent invention of heated seats.

Re:pros and cons

[stapedium]

Yes but did they control for the reason the people received a transfusion. Its not like the ER just gives everyone that walks through the door with chest pain a transfusion. There is an underlying reason for each of those transfusions that probably made them at higher risk for stroke or and MI (things like being on blood thinners because of previous heart attacks, blood clots, or strokes).

I would guess that people who received blood transfusions are also at higher risk for pneumonia and cancer.

And if NO would fix all this, they should just give them generic oral nitrates, not some crazy system to add NO to banked blood.