Plateletpheresis efficiency: a comparison of the Spectra LRS and AMICUS separators

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.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Altuntaş

Sarı²,

Koçyiğit³

et al. 2008

“…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: 86%

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

Picker¹,

Radojska²,

Gathof³

2006

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.

“…We evaluated donors' convenience and categorized citrate toxicity in slight, moderate and severe events [12,24]. Platelet CE was calculated as follows [25]: …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Platelet Concentrates Obtained with Two Different Plateletpheresis Programs of MCS<sup>®</sup>+

Stiegler¹,

Leitner²,

Panzer³

et al. 2002

Background: The new software, revision C2 of the MCS+ (Haemonetics) with continuous filtration provides reduced leukocyte filtration rates of 8–10 ml/min as the collection and storage bags hang in parallel and both are positioned slightly above the level of the leukocyte filter. Filtration is performed during the entire collection procedure. Prolonged active line sensor control enhances the surge mechanism and thus collection efficiency. Return flow rates are adapted to donors’ body weight and observed by the newly introduced citrate re-infusion control. Material and Methods: With regard to these possible advantages, we evaluated in a prospective, randomized trial plateletpheresis with revision C2 in terms of leukocyte contamination, platelet collection efficiency, and donors’ safety. Results were compared with data obtained from platelet collection using the old software, revision C. Cell counts were measured electronically, residual white blood cells were determined by flow cytometry, and pH was measured with a pH meter. Results: The platelet yield (p < 0.05) and the platelet collection efficiency (p < 0.05) are significantly higher with revision C2 (yield: median 4.11 × 10¹¹, range 3.31–6.09 × 10¹¹; collection efficiency: median 68%, range 62–82%) as compared to revision C (yield: median 3.80 × 10¹¹, range 2.76–5.05 × 10¹¹; collection efficiency: median 59%, range 49–69%). Continuously filtered platelet concentrates contained 75% less leukocytes (median 0.27 × 10⁵, range 0.2–1.3 × 10⁵; lower detection limit 0.2 × 10⁵) than platelet concentrates derived with revision C (median 1.1 × 10⁵, range 0.2–56.7 × 10⁵; lower detection limit 0.2 × 10⁵) (p < 0.05). With the new software, citrate reactions were observed in 6/26 donors compared to 10/29 with the old software. Conclusions: Our data indicate that plateletpheresis with revision C2 is a safe procedure and provides a ready-to-use, high-quality platelet product with low leukocyte contamination.