First comparison of productivity and citrate donor load between the Trima® version 4 (dual‐stage filler) and the Trima Accel® (single‐stage filler) in the same donors

Ringwald, Juergen; Zingsem, J.; Zimmermann, Robert; Strasser, Erwin; Antoon, M.; Eckstein, Reinhold

doi:10.1111/j.0042-9007.2003.00370.x

Cited by 28 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was attained by performing all collections using the same staff and donors as well as similar definitions and target endpoints on each instrument. Confirming previous reports [16,21,25], PLT loss was lowest with TA and highest with AM. The latter, however, returned additional saline solution that could have caused higher dilution of the donors' peripheral blood, thus mimicking an increased PLT loss.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Main characteristics and technical features of the PLT apheresis systems used in this study are described in more detail elsewhere in the literature [16][17][18][19][20][21]. MCS+ was the only device operating a discontinuous separation technique, while all other instruments were continuous operating systems.…”

Section: Platelet Apheresis Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

show abstract

“…The hyperconcentration may have resulted in platelet damage, and therefore we evaluated the Trima system, which uses a different collection system and hyperconcentration method. 8,12,13 Unfortunately, there were no differences in poststorage platelet viability regardless of the Terumo BCT system that was used (Tables 1 and 3; Figure 1A-B).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…7 The Trima has a single-stage channel where the cells separate into layers according to specific gravity, and each component leaves by its own outlet into a storage bag. 7,8 All collections were within the manufacturer's bag parameters for volume and total platelets per bag for 5-to 7-day plasma storage. However, these guidelines may not be applicable to the Plasmalyte (Baxter, Deerfield, IL) extended storage studies reported here.…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To further explore the effects of the collection method, we evaluated the Trima system whose collection method differs from the Spectra system. 7,8 As the survival of Spectra platelets differed from Haemonetics by 7 days (Table 3), we evaluated Trima platelets stored for 7, 9, and 13 days compared with fresh platelets. There were no differences between the Spectra and Trima systems at any storage time (Table 1; Figure 1A-B).…”

Section: Trima Plateletsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploratory studies of extended storage of apheresis platelets in a platelet additive solution (PAS)

Slichter

Corson

Jones

et al. 2014

Blood

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

• Extended apheresis platelet storage is dependent on the collection method, storage in a storage solution, and storage bag composition.• The lifespan of the platelet is not intrinsic to the cell, and platelet viability is better maintained in vitro than in vivo.To evaluate the poststorage viability of apheresis platelets stored for up to 18 days in 80% platelet additive solution (PAS)/20% plasma, 117 healthy subjects donated platelets using the Haemonetics MCS1, COBE Spectra (Spectra), or Trima Accel (Trima) systems. Control platelets from the same subjects were compared with their stored test PAS platelets by radiolabeling their stored and control platelets with either 51 chromium or 111 indium. Trima platelets met Food and Drug Administration poststorage platelet viability criteria for only 7 days vs almost 13 days for Haemonetics platelets; ie, platelet recoveries after these storage times averaged 44 6 3% vs 49 6 3% and survivals were 5.4 6 0.3 vs 4.6 6 0.3 days, respectively. The differences in storage duration are likely related to both the collection system and the storage bag. The Spectra and Trima platelets were hyperconcentrated during collection, and PAS was added, whereas the Haemonetics platelets were elutriated with PAS, which may have resulted in less collection injury. When Spectra and Trima platelets were stored in Haemonetics' bags, poststorage viability was significantly improved. Platelet viability is better maintained in vitro than in vivo, allowing substantial increases in platelet storage times. However, implementation will require resolution of potential bacterial overgrowth during storage. (Blood. 2014;123(2):271-280)

show abstract

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

First comparison of productivity and citrate donor load between the Trima® version 4 (dual‐stage filler) and the Trima Accel® (single‐stage filler) in the same donors

Abstract: These data show that the Trima Accel represents a further improvement in apheresis platelet production with a better productivity and donor comfort, especially regarding the mean flow of ACDA to the donor.

Cited by 28 publications

References 31 publications

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

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

Exploratory studies of extended storage of apheresis platelets in a platelet additive solution (PAS)

Blood component collection by apheresis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About