Evaluation of the Amicus Separator in the collection of apheresis platelets

Yockey, Charles C.; Murphy, Scott; Eggers, Lars; Garratty, George; Dingle, Aaron M.; Helms, C A; Moroff, Gary

doi:10.1046/j.1537-2995.1998.38998409005.x

Cited by 33 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared to results reported in the literature, our COM.TEC CE results (57 ± 15%) were similar to those reported: 52-55% [13,17,18]. However, our Amicus results (55 ± 15%) were lower than the reported averages of 66-73% [8][9][10][11][19][20][21][22]. On the other hand, when comparing the instruments with regard to PLT yield/blood volume processed, the Amicus showed a significantly higher ratio compared to the COM.TEC (0.42 vs. 0.33; p < 0.001).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Using the Amicus, Laurencet et al [20] reported <5 × 10 6 WBC in 98% of the products and <1 × 10 6 WBC in 84%. Additionally, some studies have confirmed the consistency of leukoreduction [9][10][11]21]. In the present study, all products obtained with both instruments had a WBC content <5 × 10 6 (0.30 × 10 6 to 1.2 × 10 6 vs. 0.26 × 10 6 to 1.43 × 10 6 ; p = 0.805).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

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

show abstract

“…The present data are in line with those of Stiegler et al, who reported on a median CE of 68% and a PLT yield 4.11 · 10 11 [27]. CE obtained with the discontinuous flow separator MCS+ are similar to those of the Amicus blood cell separator [5][6][7] and higher than those of the AS.TEC 204 and Cobe Spectra devices [2,3,5]. Increased CE may translate into multiple benefits, including increased platelet doses, decreased donor collection time, and/or increased double-unit SDPs harvested.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Fuji surge technique and continuous in‐line filtration to improve the quality of single donor platelet concentrates

Moog¹

2002

J of Clinical Apheresis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

White blood cell (WBC)-reduced single donor platelet concentrates (SDPs) can be collected by most cell separators. WBC reduction can be achieved directly during plateletpheresis or by filtration. Continuous filtration with low filtration rates provides SDPs of good purity. To compensate the platelet (PLT) loss due to filtration, the PLT yield in the unfiltered primary product should be optimal. Fifty donors underwent plateletpheresis with the MCS+ blood cell separator (Haemonetics) with the new Fuji surge technique and continuous WBC filtration. Twelve SDPs were analysed for PLT yield, red blood cells (RBC), WBC, and pH after collection (Day 0) and at the end of storage (Day 5). Thereafter, further 38 SDPs were measured for PLT and WBC content in routine production at Day 0. PLT were determined electronically, RBC and WBC were counted manually (Neubauer and Nageotte chamber, respectively). For pH measurement, a pH-meter was used. Mean blood volume processed was 2621 +/- 112 ml in a donation time of 76 +/- 10 min. An average PLT yield of 3.45 +/- 0.88 x 10(11) was collected in a product volume of 325 +/- 77 ml. The collection efficiency was 60.0 +/- 5.5%. WBC contamination of all units tested was 0.046 +/- 0.059 x 10(6) and the RBC content of the SDPs analysed at Day 0 was 0.014 +/- 0.003 x 10(9). The pH was well maintained over the storage period of 5 days. The data indicate that Fuji surge technique and continuous in-line leukocyte filtration allow for the collection of SDPs with high platelet yield and low leukocyte contamination, meeting the Council of Europe quality standards.

show abstract

“…Once again, Amicus single-needle and Trima Accel were the highest. Others have reported collection efficiencies of 86% for Accel, 67% and 24-116%, for Amicus and 62% for MCS+ [13,15,16].…”

Section: Collection Rates and Efficienciesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Blood component collection by apheresis

Burgstaler

2006

J. Clin. Apheresis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Apheresis component collection is a rapidly growing area in the blood collection field. Several instruments with varying capabilities are available. This is a brief review of the equipment available for granulocyte and apheresis component collection and indications for their use. In the United States, granulocytes are collected with the Fenwal CS3000, Fenwal CS3000 Plus, COBE (Gambro) Spectra, Haemonetics LN9000, and Fresenius AS 104. The use of hetastarch for sedimenting agent and stimulation with G-CSF and G-CSF plus dexamethasone have substantially increased granulocyte yields. Plateletapheresis is performed in the United States on the Fenwal CS3000, Fenwal CS3000 Plus, Fenwal Amicus, COBE (Gambro) Spectra, Gambro Trima Version 4, Gambro Trima Accel (Version 5), and Haemonetics LN9000. Automated red blood cell (RBC) collections are performed with the Haemonetics MCS+LN8150, Gambro Trima Version 4, Gambro Trima Accel (Version 5), Amicus, and Baxter Alyx. The RBC can be collected concurrently (with other components) in some instruments or separately in others. Plasma is collected concurrently on several instruments. Plasmapheresis for plasma only is performed on the Fenwal Autopheresis C and Haemonetics PCS2. Granulocyte yields range from 0.46 x 10(10) to 1.0 x 10(10) for unstimulated donors and 2.1 x 10(10) to 2.6 x 10(10) for donors stimulated with dexamethasone or prednisone. The use of G-CSF and G-CSF with dexamethasone has substantially increased granulocyte yields with yields of 4.1 x 10(10) to 10.8 x 10(10) reported. Platelet collection rates of 0.045-0.115 x 10(11) plt/min have been reported. Collection efficiencies of 46-85.7% have been reported. Automated (apheresis) component collection has the advantages of controlled volumes or doses of component, efficient use of the donor, multiple components from the same donor, better inventory control, and better quality control due to less manipulation of the individual components. Disadvantages of automated component collection include the use of expensive equipment and disposables, the need for specially trained machine operators, and lower capacity to collect large volumes of blood compared to whole blood donation. The use of apheresis component collection is rapidly growing to provide the best blood components in the most efficient manner.

show abstract

Evaluation of the Amicus Separator in the collection of apheresis platelets

Abstract: The Amicus Separator provided satisfactory platelet yields and collection efficiency, with shorter collection times than did the Spectra LRS, and it white cell-reduced components without filtration.

Cited by 33 publications

References 6 publications

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

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

Fuji surge technique and continuous in‐line filtration to improve the quality of single donor platelet concentrates

Blood component collection by apheresis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About