xinni19
1st November 2007, 01:58 AM
I guess some of you might have already heard about the latest research done by some scientists. The short of it is that blood transfusions aren't as successful as we had hoped them to be, and might in fact make things worse i.e. cause cardiac arrests or even deaths during transfusions. The risks are lower for those who do not get transfused.
This is because the level of nitric oxide in the blood drops rapidly, in fact 3 hours is all you need to see a drastic decrease. Nitric oxide is important to opening up the blood vessels to allow oxygen to travel through the blood. Without nitric oxide, the vessels constrict thereby causing heart attacks and the possibility of deaths. What turned out as a cure could very well kill us.
For more pls visit: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/09/health/main3346548.shtml
So what I want to find out are the responses to this research. There was a rather encouraging response to the abovementioned research though.
For more pls visit:
http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18921659&BRD=2289&PAG=461&dept_id=513237&rfi=6
Though the scientists found this flaw in the transfusion, they also tested positive results of re-introducing nitic oxide into banked blood. However, more clinical testing needs to be done in order for current blood processing procedures to be altered.
Obviously, there is still a need for blood donations now. We can't possibly stop drawing blood even if there aren't apparent cures to this situation. However, there are also what they call bloodless medicines, aimed at reducing the need for blood transfusions by reducing blood loss during surgeries. This is a good thing through and through. It means more blood for cancer patients etc.
What I would like to find out is, would the thought that blood transfusion could be rendered useless cause people to stop donating blood? What are the prospects of blood donation in the near future, for lack of a better term?
This is because the level of nitric oxide in the blood drops rapidly, in fact 3 hours is all you need to see a drastic decrease. Nitric oxide is important to opening up the blood vessels to allow oxygen to travel through the blood. Without nitric oxide, the vessels constrict thereby causing heart attacks and the possibility of deaths. What turned out as a cure could very well kill us.
For more pls visit: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/09/health/main3346548.shtml
So what I want to find out are the responses to this research. There was a rather encouraging response to the abovementioned research though.
For more pls visit:
http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18921659&BRD=2289&PAG=461&dept_id=513237&rfi=6
Though the scientists found this flaw in the transfusion, they also tested positive results of re-introducing nitic oxide into banked blood. However, more clinical testing needs to be done in order for current blood processing procedures to be altered.
Obviously, there is still a need for blood donations now. We can't possibly stop drawing blood even if there aren't apparent cures to this situation. However, there are also what they call bloodless medicines, aimed at reducing the need for blood transfusions by reducing blood loss during surgeries. This is a good thing through and through. It means more blood for cancer patients etc.
What I would like to find out is, would the thought that blood transfusion could be rendered useless cause people to stop donating blood? What are the prospects of blood donation in the near future, for lack of a better term?