Aim: To determine the types of transfusion reactions with the highest incidence in KBC Split, and the relationship between the type of transfusion reaction and the blood product that caused such reaction. To determine the probability of recurrence in the same patient, and the proportion of transfusion reactions with irregular immunohematological tests. Subjects and methods: Data subjects are patients, recipients of blood and blood products with reported transfusion reactions in the period 2019-2020 in the Institute for Transfusion Medicine, University Hospital of Split. e-Delphyn information system data was used in the research. As part of the treatment, depending on the type of transfusion reaction, it is necessary to perform immunohematological tests, biochemical tests, microbiological processing of the blood preparation, the patient's blood culture and the test for anti-HLA antibodies. Results: From 2019-2020, 130 data subjects with an average age of 67.5 years with a post-transfusion reaction were registered in the Institute for Transfusion of University Hospital of Split. There was no statistically significant difference in the age of men and women (P = 0.355). Most data subjects had an allergic reaction 52.1%, followed by immunization 18.5% and FNHTR 12.6%. 90% of them had a mild clinical picture. The distribution of data subjects by sex did not differ statistically significantly in relation to the type of preparations received (χ2 = 2.6; P = 0454). All data subjects with fresh frozen plasma had an allergic reaction, which caused 50% of the total number of allergic reactions. In subjects with received platelet concentrate, 61% of them had an allergic reaction, while in subjects with received combined blood products, the largest number of them 62% had an allergic reaction. A repeated reaction occurred in 6% of data subjects, and in half of them an allergic reaction recurred. Immunohematological testing a total of 36% of data subjects had positive tests. The distribution of patients according to the transfusion reaction was statistically significantly different in relation to the immunohematological finding (positive, negative) (χ2 = 83.6; P <0.01). None of the data subjects with immunization and DHTR had a negative immunohematological finding. By analyzing the number of received preparations, we did not prove a statistically significant difference in relation to the transfusion reaction (P = 0.543). Conclusion: The results of this study indicate the importance of pre-transfusion testing, as well as the importance of leukoreduction in the production of blood products. They also confirm that the safety of transfusion treatment in University Hospital Split is in line with American and European standards.