Background Non-invasive molecular analysis of cell-free DNA (cfDNA) became a sensitive biomarker for monitoring organ transplantation or for detection of fetal DNA (cffDNA) in noninvasive prenatal test. In this study, we compared the efficiencies of four (semi)-automated cfDNA isolation instruments using their respective isolation kit: MagNA Pure 24 (Roche®), IDEAL (IDSolution®), LABTurbo 24 (Taigen®) and Chemagic 360 (Perkin Elmer®). The cfDNA was isolated from 5 plasma samples and the Rhesus D (RhD)-cffDNA from 5 maternal plasmas. The cfDNA were quantified by digital droplet PCR (ddPCR), BIABooster system and QUBIT fluorometer. The cfDNA fragment size profiles were assessed by BIABooster system. Chimerism were quantified by home-made ddPCR and Devyser NGS kit. RhD-cffDNA in maternal plasma were detected between weeks 14 and 24 of amenorrhea using free DNA Fetal RHD Kit® (Biorad®). Results Statistical tests have shown differences in DNA yield depending on the isolation procedure and quantification method used. Magna Pure isolates smaller cfDNA fragment size than other extraction methods (90% ± 9% vs. 74% ± 8%; p = 0.009). Chimerism was only reliable from LABTurbo 24 extractions using the NGS but not with ddPCR whatever extraction methods. RhD-cffDNA were detected by all isolation methods, although IDEAL and LABTurbo 24 systems seemed more efficient. Conclusions This comparative study showed a dependency of cfDNA yield depending on isolation procedure and quantification method used. In total, these results suggest that the choice of pre-analytical isolation systems needs to be carefully validated in routine clinical practice.

Background Transfusion of defective platelets could contribute to the inefficiency of platelet transfusion in preventing or stopping bleeding. Study Design and Methods This single‐center prospective study aimed to determine the prevalence of functional platelet abnormalities in a population of blood donors with a clinical history of bleeding diathesis or with history of hematoma (>4 cm) during blood donation. Donors with positive bleeding screening questionnaire were referred to the reference center for rare platelet diseases at La Timone University Hospital (Marseille) to confirm the bleeding tendency using a more extensive bleeding questionnaire (MCMDMscore) and to assess hemostasis, including a comprehensive platelet analysis. Results One hundred and ninety‐five donors identified based on a history of hematoma and 2434 blood donors were included in the study. Eighty‐eight donors (3.6%) had a bleeding score indicating a potential bleeding disorder. Five donors with a history of hematoma (2.5%) and 15 (17%) donors with a confirmed bleeding score underwent hemostatic analysis, including two men and 18 women with average age of 33.9 years. Minor hemostatic abnormalities were observed in three donors. Two donors exhibited accelerated fibrinolysis with reduced euglobulin lysis time and increased D‐dimer levels in serum. Two donors had a platelet granule defect, without identification of genetic abnormality. Conclusion The bleeding questionnaire proved to be a valuable tool to screen blood donors for potential platelet defects. Platelet dysfunction was rare in the blood donor population assessed. Additional studies are necessary to understand the clinical impact that the transfusion of platelets with qualitative defects has on recipients.