Are all temperature indicators created equal?

When it comes to cost and performance, how do you choose?

by Jeffrey Gutkind

In today’s cost-conscious healthcare environment, our immediate reaction when making a buying decision is to minimize purchase cost.   The temperature indicators currently on the market have different costs.  And there are questions you may be asking:

  • is the “cheapest” purchase price going to save the blood bank money overall?
  • are all indicators equal in terms of performance?
  • how do you know which indicator to choose?

To answer these questions, let’s take a step back and question WHY we even use temperature indicators.

Temperature indicators for blood products were originally designed to provide assurance that blood product temperatures had not exceeded AABB temperature guidelines when the blood is out of the blood bank’s control. The temperature indicator provides proof that the blood product has been maintained at proper temperature while out of the blood bank control.

Numerous visitors to our AABB booth a few weeks ago stated that 40-50% of the blood issued from their blood banks is not used. To further illustrate the challenge, a journal article recently published in Transfusion (shared in our August 2014 VUEPOINT), described a study by a blood bank that stated how most of their blood waste was from either temperature or time (away from the blood bank) excursions, and that 70% of those losses came from blood products issued to the OR in coolers.  Temperature indicators are used by blood banks worldwide for exactly this reason – to provide assurance that the blood products at no time exceeded temperature thresholds, to help maintain blood product quality and to minimize blood waste.

So, other than cost, what matters when choosing an indicator?

Let’s circle back to our initial questions of the temperature indicator cost and the temperature indicator performance.  Since the job of a temperature indicator is to provide temperature information back to the blood bank, the indicator’s temperature ACCURACY (also referred to as “tolerance”) is critical.

As an example, of the three most popular 10o C temperature indicators on the market today, each publishes a different accuracy specification:

  • Safe-T-Vue 10  +/- 0.4 o C
  • Indicator A +/- 0.5 o C
  • Indicator B +/- 1.0 o C

How does indicator accuracy influence blood product waste?

In this illustration, you can see that a 10oC indicator with an accuracy of  +/- 1.0 may actually “trip” at 9 o C, thus falsely indicating that the temperature of the blood is out of specification.  And, as we all know, the cost of wasted blood itself far exceeds the purchase price of an indicator – and minimizing blood waste (not indicator cost) is the primary objective behind using a temperature indicator.

Using an average cost of $250.00 for a single wasted blood unit, it’s easy to calculate the potential savings of using a more accurate temperature indicator.   The cost difference in temperature indicators is minimal in comparison to the cost of one wasted unit of blood.

When comparing temperature indicators to make a buying decision, be sure to make ACCURACY comparison a key factor in your selection process.  Safe-T-Vue indicators are available in 6°C and 10°C temperature indications, both accurate within +/-0.4°C.  *

As always, we welcome your comments and feedback on the ideas presented in this VUEPOINT.


Jeffrey Gutkind

* Refer to AABB standards for blood banks and transfusion services, 21 CFR 640.2, 21 CFR 640.4, and 21 CFR 600.15.

Reduce RBC and FFP Waste, Improve ROI

Learn more from this Blood Transport and Storage Initiative that resulted in significant ROI

by Jeff Gutkind, Business Development Manager

I recently read an article in the journal Transfusion1 in reference to reducing red blood cell (RBC) and plasma (FFP) waste.  The study showed significant reduction in RBC and FFP waste by using a new blood transport and storage system, and a significant return on their investment in the new system (estimated savings of $9000/month for their institution).

While the article doesn’t speak to temperature indicators, it does seem to validate that there is a trend toward cooler storage in the OR being considered “intraoperative storage,” which is significant.

For those of us sensitive to blood waste (and associated costs) due to time-temperature issues, this study has a wealth of valuable information and powerful messages:The article cites a national waste rate for hospital-issued blood products ranging from 0% to 6%, and a common reason for blood waste being inadequate intraoperative storage.2

  • The article describes how most of their blood waste was from either temperature or time (away from the blood bank) excursions, and that 70% of those losses came from blood product issued to the OR in coolers.
  • In the second paragraph they state that “AABB standards require red blood cell and plasma units to be maintained at a temperature of 1-10°C during transport and 1-6°C during intraoperative storage.
  • They go on to state (under Materials and Methods) that “holding product in the OR represents a storage condition“….. and “the storage (1-6°C), not the more lenient transport (1-10°C) temperature range needed to be maintained.”

Their previous procedure was to issue blood products to the OR in off-the-shelf commercial coolers that were validated to hold product at 1-10°C for 8 hours. They changed to a new, more expensive cooler that incorporated specialty phase change material that is validated to hold 1-6°C for 18 hours. As a result of the new system and strategy, they have improved their “storage” compliance to 1-6°C and reduced waste from 1.20% to 0.06%, which they calculate to save the $9,000 per MONTH.

The result of this study suggests that incorporating a new, longer duration blood shipping and storage container has allowed the OR to store blood for up to 18 hours at 1-6°C while meeting AABB’s more strict guidelines and has produced significant cost savings and notable return on investment 

It would be interesting to see the savings if they incorporated a Safe-T-Vue 6 indicator in this study.


1. Brown MJ, Button LM, Badjie KS, Guyer JM, Dhanaroker SR, Brach EJ, Johnson PM, Stubbs JR. Implementation of an intraoperative blood transport and storage initiative and its effect on reducing red blood cell and plasma waste, Transfusion 2014;54: 710-07.

2. Heltimiller ES, Hill RB, Marshall CE, Parsons FJ, Berkow LC, Barrasso CA, Zink EK, Ness PM. Blood wastage reduction using Lean Sigma methodology. Transufions 2010;50: 1887-96.