Double red blood vs whole blood donations effect on hematocrit, which is more effective?

PAUL-E

Member
Like the title says does anyone know if double red blood or whole blood donations is more effective in keeping hematocrit lower long term?


I know the difference between the two but was just curious if one was more effective than the other say if someone's hematocrit rises fast for example :confused: if that makes any sense.


I searched but didn't find a answer.
 
With whole blood I saw my Hematocrit come down to 47? from 56 in three donations but my RBC was still just over max lab values. Hope that helps. Me personally donating only slightly bothers me, it's not an issue, but I'm turned off by needles in both arms for an hour with a double red blood cell donation.
 
Thanks for the reply, The red cross only uses one needle for the double red blood and it's a smaller gauge needle then the whole blood but takes longer. I donate because my hematocrit is at the top of the range, seems like a good thing to do and figure hopefully a little good carma my way couldn't hurt.
 
As Vince Carter describes, and many others confirm, whole blood donation is very effective.

Just a guess but wouldn't the benefit of a double red blood cell pull be negated by the doubled period between donations? As with other things we do, my sense is that more frequent + less extreme provides greater benefit over the long term.
 
I was thinking would the sudden more dramatic drop of red blood cells from a double donation cause the body to react and make more RBC quickly thinking there was a injury/loss of blood than a whole blood donation?
 
I too have wondered this. I can't donate, but next time I go in to do a phlebotomy I'll ask the blood center more details and see if I can't get a solid answer on it.
 

Online statistics

Members online
7
Guests online
312
Total visitors
319

Latest posts

Back
Top