The Recipient Epidemiology and Donor Evaluation Study-IV-Pediatric (REDS-IV-P) is the fourth iteration of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's REDS program and includes a focus on pediatric populations. The REDS-IV-P Vein-to-Vein (V2V) database encompasses linked information from blood donors, blood components, and patients to facilitate studies in transfusion medicine.

Study Design and Methods

The V2V database is an Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model database. The study period is April 1, 2019 through December 31, 2023. Data from all donors and donations at participating blood centers, all blood components derived from the donations, and all inpatient visits and selected outpatient visits at participating hospitals are included. The database captures all information within patient data domains not restricting data to a preselected subset of medical records.

Results

The V2V database contains data from 7 blood centers and 22 hospitals. We project the database will have over 2 billion pieces of information from 1.3 million patients with 20.6 million healthcare encounters. The database will include data on approximately 1 million transfused units and 2.3 million donors with approximately 6.8 million donation visits.

Conclusion

The REDS-IV-P V2V database is a comprehensive database with data from millions of blood donors, blood components, and patients. A diverse set of data from the encounters are included in the database such that emerging questions can likely be addressed. The Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model is an efficient, flexible, and increasingly used common data model. The final de-identified database will be publicly available.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1Josephson CD, Glynn S, Mathew S, Birch R, Bakkour S, Baumann Kreuziger L, et al. The Recipient Epidemiology and Donor Evaluation Study-IV-Pediatric (REDS-IV-P): a research program striving to improve blood donor safety and optimize transfusion outcomes across the lifespan. Transfusion. 2022; 62: 982–999.
10.1111/trf.16869
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2Spitalnik SL, Triulzi D, Devine DV, Dzik WH, Eder AF, Gernsheimer T, et al. 2015 Proceedings of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's State of the Science in Transfusion Medicine symposium. Transfusion. 2015; 55(9): 2282–2290.
10.1111/trf.13250
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3Kleinman S, Glynn SA. Database research in transfusion medicine: the power of large numbers. Transfusion. 2015; 55(7): 1591–1595.
10.1111/trf.13139
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4Karafin MS, Bruhn R, Westlake M, Sullivan MT, Bialkowski W, Edgren G, et al. Demographic and epidemiologic characterization of transfusion recipients from four US regions: evidence from the REDS-III recipient database. Transfusion. 2017; 57(12): 2903–2913.
10.1111/trf.14370
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5Voss EA, Makadia R, Matcho A, Ma Q, Knoll C, Schuemie M, et al. Feasibility and utility of applications of the common data model to multiple, disparate observational health databases. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015; 22(3): 553–564.
10.1093/jamia/ocu023
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6Klann JG, Joss MAH, Embree K, Murphy SN. Data model harmonization for the All Of Us Research Program: transforming i2b2 data into the OMOP common data model. PloS One. 2019; 14(2):e0212463.
10.1371/journal.pone.0212463
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
7Sun Y, Butler A, Stewart LA, Liu H, Yuan C, Southard CT, et al. Building an OMOP common data model-compliant annotated corpus for COVID-19 clinical trials. Biomed Inform. 2021; 118:103790.
10.1016/j.jbi.2021.103790
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8Kahn MG, Callahan TJ, Barnard J, Bauck AE, Brown J, Davidson BN, et al. A harmonized data quality assessment terminology and framework for the secondary use of electronic health record data. Egems. 2016; 4(1): 1244.
10.13063/2327-9214.1244
PubMed Google Scholar
9Reinecke I, Zoch M, Reich C, Sedlmayr M, Bathelt F. The usage of OHDSI OMOP—a scoping review. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2021; 283: 95–103.
PubMed Google Scholar
10Rosenbloom ST, Carroll RJ, Warner JL, Matheny ME, Denny JC. Representing knowledge consistently across health systems. Yearb Med Inform. 2017 Aug; 26(1): 139–147.
10.15265/IY-2017-018
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
11You SC, Lee S, Choi B, Park RW. Establishment of an international evidence sharing network through common data model for cardiovascular research. Korean Circ J. 2022; 52(12): 853–864.
10.4070/kcj.2022.0294
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12Goel R, Zhu X, Patel EU, Crowe EP, Ness PM, Katz LM, et al. Blood transfusion trends in the United States: national inpatient sample, 2015 to 2018. Blood Adv. 2021; 5(20): 4179–4184.
10.1182/bloodadvances.2021005361
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13Goel R, Josephson CD, Patel EU, Petersen MR, Packman Z, Gehrie E, et al. Individual- and hospital-level correlates of red blood cell, platelet, and plasma transfusions among hospitalized children and neonates: a nationally representative study in the United States. Transfusion. 2020; 60(8): 1700–1712.
10.1111/trf.15855
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14Goel R, Chappidi MR, Patel EU, Ness PM, Cushing MM, Frank SM, et al. Trends in red blood cell, plasma, and platelet transfusions in the United States, 1993–2014. JAMA. 2018; 319(8): 825–827.
10.1001/jama.2017.20121
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15Goel R, Zhu X, Makhani S, Petersen MR, Josephson CD, Katz LM, et al. Blood transfusions in gunshot-wound-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations in the United States. Transfusion. 2021; 61(8): 2277–2289.
10.1111/trf.16552
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16Goel R, Josephson CD, Patel EU, Petersen MR, Makhani S, Frank SM, et al. Perioperative transfusions and venous thromboembolism. Pediatrics. 2020; 145(4):e20192351.
10.1542/peds.2019-2351
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17Goel R, Patel EU, Cushing MM, Frank SM, Ness PM, Takemoto CM, et al. Association of perioperative red blood cell transfusions with venous thromboembolism in a North American Registry. JAMA Surg. 2018; 153(9): 826–833.
10.1001/jamasurg.2018.1565
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18Zhao J, Rostgaard K, Hjalgrim H, Edgren G. The Swedish Scandinavian donations and transfusions database (SCANDAT3-S)—50 years of donor and recipient follow-up. Transfusion. 2020; 60(12): 3019–3027.
10.1111/trf.16027
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19Fishbein HA, Birch RJ, Mathew SM, Sawyer HL, Pulver G, Poling J, et al. The longitudinal epidemiologic assessment of diabetes risk (LEADR): unique 1.4 M patient electronic health record cohort. Healthcare. 2020; 8(4):100458.
10.1016/j.hjdsi.2020.100458
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
20Lamer A, Osama A-A, Bourgeois A, et al. Transforming anesthesia data into the observational medical outcomes partnership common data model: development and usability study. J Med Internet Res. 2021; 23(10):e29259.
10.2196/29259
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 USFDA. Utilization of blood components within the BEST Initiative EHR network, 2012–2018. 2020. Available from: https://bestinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Blood_Component_Exposure_Report_2020.pdf
Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume63, Issue9

September 2023

Pages 1623-1632

How do we build a comprehensive Vein-to-Vein (V2V) database for conduct of observational studies in transfusion medicine? Demonstrated with the Recipient Epidemiology and Donor Evaluation Study-IV-Pediatric V2V database protocol

Abstract

Background

Study Design and Methods

Results

Conclusion

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

REFERENCES

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

How do we build a comprehensive Vein-to-Vein (V2V) database for conduct of observational studies in transfusion medicine? Demonstrated with the Recipient Epidemiology and Donor Evaluation Study-IV-Pediatric V2V database protocol

Abstract

Background

Study Design and Methods

Results

Conclusion

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

REFERENCES

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information