A comparison of PLT collections from two apheresis devices

Bueno, José Luis; Barea, Luisa; García, Fernando; Castro, Emma

doi:10.1111/j.0041-1132.2003.00598.x

Cited by 25 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hb loss during this procedure was minimal (1.3 AE 0.7 g/dl), and donors with Hb of 12 g/dl, donated safely. Similar results were observed in another recent study [3].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Factors affecting platelet yield and their impact on the platelet increment of patients receiving single donor PLT transfusion

Enein

Hussein

Shafie

et al. 2007

J of Clinical Apheresis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of various donor and machine parameters on PLT yield in 127 PLT apheresis procedures, to optimize PLT yield achieving clinical and economic advantages. One hundred and twenty-seven apheresis procedures were analyzed. Age, gender, volume processed, Hb, and PLT precounts were included as donor predicting variables. AC infusion rate, processing time, and plasma volume collected with PLTs were assessed as machine parameters. We evaluated the post-transfusion effectiveness in 23 patients with thrombocytopenia, studying the effect of PLT dose, ABO group, and PLT storage time. Females gave higher yields, compared to males, P<0.01. PLT yield correlated positively with PLT precount (r=0.512), and TBV (r=0.404), and negatively with donor preapheresis Hb (r=-0.306). Processing time and AC infusion rate had a positive impact on PLT yield. Post-apheresis decrease in PLT count was 53.6+/-26.3x10(11). Donors with Hb>or=12 g/dl, donated safely. Most of the complications were citrate related (13.4% of all procedures). PLT increments in transfused patients correlated positively with the number of units transfused (r=0.41), and negatively with PLT storage days (r=-0.342). PLT increments in patients receiving ABO-compatible PLTs were 75% higher, compared to the increments in patients receiving incompatible PLTs. PLT count and volume processed were the main predictors of PLT yield. Increasing the processing time, the AC infusion rate, or the volume of plasma obtained with PLTs can increase PLT yields. High PLT dose, short storage time, as well as ABO compatibility should be considered during PLT transfusion.

show abstract

“…Hb loss during this procedure was minimal (1.3 AE 0.7 g/dl), and donors with Hb of 12 g/dl, donated safely. Similar results were observed in another recent study [3].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…PLT apheresis was unlikely to produce clinically significant thrombocytopenia, as PLTs are most probably released from the spleenic stores during donation. Also, the rinse cycle in the COBE machine, which occurs at the end of the run, enables PLTs remaining in the set to be returned to the donor [3].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors affecting platelet yield and their impact on the platelet increment of patients receiving single donor PLT transfusion

Enein

Hussein

Shafie

et al. 2007

J of Clinical Apheresis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The CEs noted complied favorably with the data reported in the literature for TA (71-76%) [16,30], AM (66-73%) [18,[31][32][33], MCS+ (60-63%) [33,34], TV4 (63-65%) [16,35], and SPC (51-56%) [18,35,36]. Because CE depends markedly on preprocedure donor characteristics irrespective of procedure time, CR probably appears to be a more practical way of comparing PLT apheresis systems because it addresses both, PLT yield and time, considered today as important as yield when evaluating equipment.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

A Prospective Crossover Trial Comparing Performance and in vitro Platelet Quality of Three New Apheresis Devices with Current Equipment

Picker¹,

Radojska²,

Gathof³

2006

Transfus Med Hemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To improve productivity of automated platelet (PLT) collection, the industry has introduced new instruments or modifications to existing equipment. Materials and Methods: Data obtained from 8 regular PLT apheresis donors randomized to double- (DDC) or triple-dose PLT collection (TDC) with the BAXTER Amicus (AM), the HAEMONETICS MCS Plus (MCS+), and the GAMBRO Trima Accel (TA) were evaluated focusing on duration, citrate infusion and product quality, and statistically compared to data obtained from the same donors during DDC on our current equipment (GAMBRO Trima V4 (TV4) and Spectra LRS-Turbo V7 (SPC)). Results: All units were sufficiently leukoreduced to below 1 × 106 white blood cells (WBCs). Apart from statistically significant lower pH values and higher CD62P expression observed with AM units, no differences in in vitro function were noted during storage. Compared to our current equipment, the new devices had advantages for whole blood processed, and, except for MCS+, for needle time, collection volume, collection rate, and collection efficiency. PLT yield and processing time were equivalent, except for TA which was the fastest machine. MCS+ was the slowest device owing to statistically significant lower draw and collection rates which were, however, compensated by fewer citrate reactions due to only moderate citrate infusion rates. Conclusion: Despite equal or better efficiencies, collection procedures with the new devices did not automatically increase the number of units per day, particularly if quick donation was counteracted by long overall performance (AM). TA was the fastest and hence offered the highest potential to optimize productivity. MCS+ showed better donor comfort, as reflected by lower draw and citrate infusion rates, but was also the slowest.

show abstract

“…Efficient platelet collection with fewer procedure-related side effects is an important consideration for donors. The most common procedural adverse effects are citrate related [16][17][18]24]; the incidence of citrate toxicity varies from 0.11 to 16% in different studies [8,[25][26][27][28]. Citrate-related reactions have been observed in 0.5% of cases on the COM.TEC machine [17].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Plateletpheresis on the Fenwal Amicus and Fresenius Com.Tec Cell Separators

Altuntaş

Sarı²,

Koçyiğit³

et al. 2008

Transfus Med Hemother

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: A variety of apheresis devices are now available on the market for plateletapheresis. We compared two apheresis instruments (Fenwal Amicus and Fresenius COM.TEC) with regard to processing time, platelet (PLT) yield and efficiency, and white blood cell (WBC) content. Material and Methods: Donors undergoing plateletpheresis were randomly separated into two groups (either the Amicus or the COM.TEC cell separator). Results: In the pre-apheresis setting, 32 plateletpheresis procedures performed with each instrument revealed no significant differences in donors’ sex, age, weight, height and total blood volume between the two groups. However, the preapheresis PLT count was higher with the COM.TEC than with the Amicus (198 ×10³/µl vs. 223 ×10³/µl; p = 0.035). The blood volume processed to reach a target PLT yield of ≧3.3 ×10¹¹ was higher in the COM.TEC compared to the Amicus (3,481 vs. 2,850 ml; p < 0.001). The median separation time was also significantly longer in the COM.TEC than in the Amicus (61 vs. 44 min; p < 0.001). 91 and 88% of the PLT products collected with the Amicus and the COM.TEC, respectively, had a PLT count of ≧3.3 ×10¹¹ (p = 0.325). All products obtained with both instruments had WBC counts lower than 5 ↔10⁶, as required. There was no statistical difference with regard to collection efficiency between the devices (55 ± 15 vs. 57 ± 15%; p = 0.477). However, the collection rate was significantly higher with the Amicus compared to the COM.TEC instrument (0.077 ± 0.012 ×10¹¹ vs. 0.057 ± 0.008 ×10¹¹ PLT/min; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Both instruments collected platelets efficiently. Additionally, consistent leukoreduction was obtained with both instruments; however, compared with the COM.TEC instrument, the Amicus reached the PLT target yield more quickly.

show abstract

A comparison of PLT collections from two apheresis devices

Abstract: The Trima machine is faster and more efficient than the Spectra machine, and both machines allow standard leukoreduced SDPs to be obtained. Although donors receive a higher anticoagulant infusion with the Trima machine, their tolerance is acceptable.

Cited by 25 publications

References 20 publications

Factors affecting platelet yield and their impact on the platelet increment of patients receiving single donor PLT transfusion

Factors affecting platelet yield and their impact on the platelet increment of patients receiving single donor PLT transfusion

A Prospective Crossover Trial Comparing Performance and in vitro Platelet Quality of Three New Apheresis Devices with Current Equipment

Comparison of Plateletpheresis on the Fenwal Amicus and Fresenius Com.Tec Cell Separators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About