Comparative Risk of Human Injury/Exposure While Collecting Blood from Sedated and Unsedated Nonhuman Primates

Abstract

Collection of blood samples for research or clinical evaluation is one of the most common procedures performed in nonhuman primates. Several possible methods can be used to obtain samples. In the early days of primate research, manual or physical restraint was used, which was stressful for the animal and risky for the human. As the field developed, chemical immobilization with ketamine or other anesthetics has become the most commonly used method. More recently, training using positive reinforcement has allowed collection of blood samples from unsedated primates that are unrestrained or minimallyrestrained. Elimination of anesthesia reduces risks to the animal. We wanted to determine whether the risks to humans were different between the sedated or unsedated blood collection. We evaluated injury and near-miss reports in conjunction with blood collection data from 2009 to 2019 at the Washington National Primate Research Center, which houses macaques (M. nemestrina, M. mulatta, and M. fasicularis) and squirrel monkeys (S. sciureus), and has housed baboons (Papio sp.) in the past. Injuries associated with sedated blood collection included those occurring during the sedation procedure and recovery as well as those directly associated with blood collection. Injuries associated with unsedated blood collection included those which occurred both during animal training and during blood collection. Overall, 22 human injury exposures and 5 nearmisses were associated with 73,626 blood collection procedures. Based on these numbers, 0.026% of sedated blood collections and 0.116% of unsedated blood collections were associated with exposure incidents. In conclusion, our data indicate a very low risk of exposure associated with blood collection. In this data set, the risk was statistically higher for unsedated animals, but the low number of incidents and the variability in the methods of blood collection make the general applicability of this finding questionable.