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

Abstract

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.

Comparison of plateletpheresis on the Fenwal Amicus, Fresenius COM.TEC, and Trima Accel Cell separators

“…Again, our CE results with Trima results (64.94 ± 7.33%) were lower than the reported average of 75.9 ± 9.7% . There is little data concerning plateletpheresis with the COM.TEC device . Altuntas et al reported a blood volume processed was higher in the COM.TEC compared with the Amicus (3,481 vs. 2,850 mL; P < 0.001).…”

Monitoring of Platelet Activation in Platelet Concentrates Using Transmission Electron Microscopy

“…Several publications reported on this subject [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. The reactivity of PLT in the recipient of the PC can only be estimated by the recovery of the hemostatic balance.…”

Improvement of plateletpheresis via technical modification on the MCS+

“…The MCS+ is being used with the advantage of easy operation and high reliability. Many studies have been made to assess different available apheresis machines regarding procedure time, platelet yield, product quality, adverse effects and other variables (Patel et al , ; Ranganathan, ; Altuntas et al , ; Tendulkar & Rajadhyaksha, ). For example, one study showed that MCS+ could produce almost the same amount of CD34+ compared with the Cosmic Backgoround Explorer (COBE) method, whereas the latter showed more potential (Rock & Sutton, ).…”