Liver Transplants Succeed without Blood Transfusions

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions. This does not prevent them from contracting hepatitis C or other diseases that necessitate liver transplants. Surgeons have developed techniques--such as withdrawing up to 1,500 milliliters of the patient's own blood for reinfusion during the surgery--to deal with these religious strictures. And a new study of liver transplant patients seems to show that avoiding donated transfusions might be good for both blood banks and patients with no religious objections.

Nicolas Jabbour of the University of Southern California and his colleagues reviewed the outcomes of 272 liver transplant patients--who were neither children nor Jehovah's Witnesses--who underwent surgery between January 1997 and December 2004 at the University of Southern California-University Hospital in Los Angeles. The patients were divided into two groups: those from before and after January 2000. This was not an arbitrary date; rather it marks the start of USC surgeons using the transfusion-avoiding techniques in all patients. Although the bulk of patients studied came after that date--only 33 non-Jehovah's Witnesses received transplants prior--the new techniques showed that transfusions of donated blood significantly declined, saving both blood and money. Even the sickest patients required fewer transfusions; typical liver transplants required as many as 14 units of packed red blood cells in 1997 compared to roughly five by 2004.

"Blood can almost never be 100 percent safe," Jabbour and his colleagues write in the paper presenting the finding in the September issue of Archives of Surgery. "Despite the current conviction among physicians that blood products are safer than they used to be, there are reports of transfusion-related transmission of hepatitis C and [HIV] and emerging data of newer pathogens." The doctors also note that the more blood transfusions given, the more likely organ rejection and ultimate death. The Jehovah's Witnesses may have some trouble predicting the apocalypse, but their antitransfusion stance seems to have helped surgeons and their liver transplant patients.�

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe