I am the 9%: Making the case for whole‐blood platelets

Over the last 15 years, there has been a trend in the United States towards the increasing use of apheresis platelet (AP) concentrates over whole‐blood‐derived platelets (WBP). Although 1‐h‐ and 24‐h‐corrected count increments tend to be higher with AP, this does not translate into improved haemostatic efficiency when used to prevent bleeding in haematology/oncology patients. WBP expose the recipient to more donors than apheresis products. However, recent studies have shown no significant differences in the rates of bacterial contamination, human leukocyte antigen alloimmunisation, RhD alloimmunisation, transfusion‐related acute lung injury or febrile non‐haemolytic transfusion reactions between these two products. Given the overall low rates of virally contaminated units in the era of nucleic acid testing and rigorous donor screening, the difference in donor exposures of 4–6 vs 1 has minimal clinical relevance. Although studies point to a marginally increased risk of donor adverse events associated with WBP, the absolute risk is too miniscule to act as a deterrent to making whole‐blood donations. Both types of platelet concentrates should therefore be considered clinically equivalent; in this light, the most responsible use of the community donor resource pool, which both optimises the utility of a whole‐blood donation and meets the clinical needs of thrombocytopenic recipients, is to have a mix of both types of platelet products so as to mitigate the risk of shortages.