Mikkelsen Christina, Sørensen Betina Samuelsen, Aagaard Bitten, Hasslund Sys, Bruun Mie Topholm, Larsen Rune, Drechsler Louise Ørnskov, Didriksen Maria, Schwinn Michael, Dowsett Joseph, Sørensen Erik, Erikstrup Christian, Pedersen Ole B, Grarup Niels, Stefansson Kari, Hansen Morten Bagge, Hansen Torben, Ostrowski Sisse Rye
Department of Clinical Immunology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Science, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Vox Sang. 2025 Sep;120(9):866-873. doi: 10.1111/vox.70072. Epub 2025 Aug 7.
Vasovagal reactions (VVRs) are some of the most common adverse reactions (ARs) in blood donors. While researchers have tried to develop precise risk prediction tools, these studies have all combined onsite and offsite reactions as well as reactions with and without the loss of consciousness. This study aimed to investigate potential differences in risk phenotypes in onsite VVRs, here defined as syncope and near-fainting.
We included 40,543 participants from the Danish Blood Donor Study (136 syncope and 1453 near-fainting cases). Data on lifestyle and health were available from questionnaires. Data on donation type, time of day and ARs were available from the blood bank it-system. The risk of VVRs was assessed in a logistic mixed-effects model which included 345,751 donations. For genotyped participants (N = 21,102), polygenic scores were calculated for syncope, anxiety, neuroticism and cardiometabolic disease.
Risk of both types of VVR was found to increase during warmer season and apheresis donation and reduce by donating late in the day. In addition, less donation experience and lower height increased the risk for near-fainting. In contrast, no donor-specific characteristics appeared to mediate the risk of syncope. Genetic predisposition of various traits had no effect on the risk of onsite VVRs.
This study indicates that onsite syncope and near-fainting are distinct conditions with different risk profiles. Our findings emphasize the importance of a more detailed analysis of VVRs, suggesting that the common practice of combining VVR subtypes may reduce the accuracy of risk prediction.
血管迷走神经反应(VVRs)是献血者中最常见的不良反应(ARs)之一。尽管研究人员试图开发精确的风险预测工具,但这些研究均将现场和非现场反应以及伴有或不伴有意识丧失的反应合并在一起。本研究旨在调查现场VVRs(此处定义为晕厥和接近昏厥)风险表型的潜在差异。
我们纳入了丹麦献血者研究中的40543名参与者(136例晕厥和1453例接近昏厥病例)。通过问卷调查可获得生活方式和健康方面的数据。通过血库信息系统可获得献血类型、一天中的时间和不良反应的数据。在一个包含345751次献血的逻辑混合效应模型中评估VVRs的风险。对于进行基因分型的参与者(N = 21102),计算了晕厥、焦虑、神经质和心血管代谢疾病的多基因评分。
发现两种类型的VVR风险在温暖季节和单采献血时会增加,而在一天晚些时候献血则会降低。此外,献血经验较少和身高较低会增加接近昏厥的风险。相比之下,没有发现特定的献血者特征介导晕厥风险。各种性状的遗传易感性对现场VVRs的风险没有影响。
本研究表明,现场晕厥和接近昏厥是具有不同风险特征的不同情况。我们的研究结果强调了对VVRs进行更详细分析的重要性,表明将VVR亚型合并的常见做法可能会降低风险预测的准确性。