Many blood banks trust and use temperature indicators that are manufactured to monitor the true core temperature of your blood products while they are outside of the blood bank’s control. 

What if you learned that the indicator does not perform in accordance with the guidelines for which it was intended to be used?

Would you have doubts that you may be inappropriately discarding valuable blood product due to this performance discrepancy?

A new article entitled “Utility of temperature-sensitive indicators for temperature monitoring of red blood cell units,” just published in Vox Sanguinis, the International Journal of Transfusion Medicine, could clear some of your doubts while answering important questions about blood temperature indicator performance. We are delighted to share this article with you in VUEPOINT (link to complete form/access e-print).

ACCESS the complete E-Print Article
RBC unit with STV10 and BT10 temperature indicators
Fig. 1 The location of temperature-sensitive indicators (TIs) on a RBC unit and the standard reading of colour change indicating 10ºC in STV10 and BT10. (a) Attached TIs (b) STV10 (c) BT10

The study documents the performance testing of two temperature indicators, Safe-T-Vue 10 (STV10) and Blood Temp 10 (BT10).  The testing, which was performed with RBC units in an actual hospital setting, demonstrated how these two indicators react when compared to the true core temperature.  Blood temperature indicators are designed and manufactured to help blood banks comply with AABB storage and transport guidelines, which require that true core temperature should not exceed 6°C and 10°C respectively, depending on the application.   

Important points from the article

Below are three important points extracted from this study that should be of significance to blood banks in compliance to AABB guidelines:

  1. “The time for color change indicating 10°C was 24.4 min in STV10, 14.6 min in BT10 and 24.2 min in CT.” (CT = Core Temperature)
  2. “Our data imply that STV10 may reflect CT better than BT10 and the performance of STV10 seems to be superior to that of BT10.”
  3. “From a practical point of view, STV10 seems to be more reliable and user-friendly with less interobserver heterogeneity or variation.”
ACCESS the complete E-Print Article

Handy Tip

Please refer to the VUEPOINT published earlier for more information regarding performance of temperature indicators.

Correction: STV and other blood bag temperature indicators are “cleared” by FDA through the 510(k) process, rather than “approved.” This is stated twice in the journal article, and is not accurate.