Recruitment of platelets, white blood cells, and hematopoietic progenitor cells during high‐yield plateletpheresis

Abstract

PLT recruitment during high-yield plateletpheresis facilitates the harvest of multiple PLT units in a single donation. The use of the ratio of recruited to yielded PLT may optimize the algorithm to predict PLT(post) . There was no recruitment of WBCs and HPCs during plateletpheresis. Therefore, the previously observed recruitment of HPCs during HPC apheresis seems to be related to other factors than the apheresis procedure itself.

Plateletpheresis efficiency and mathematical correction of software‐derived platelet yield prediction: A linear regression and ROC modeling approach

“…It is important to note however that apheresis collection and transfusion have inherent risks for donors and patients, as has recently being stressed . In this regard, platelet recruitment during high‐yield plateletpheresis has been documented and use of the ratio of recruited to yielded PLT has been proposed to optimize the algorithm to predict donor PLT count after apheresis . Donor's pre‐apheresis PLT count has been evaluated as a predictive factor of DP donations in a previous study .…”

Evaluation of donor factors contributing to plateletpheresis yields among apheresis platelet donors

“…Heyns and colleagues have shown that two‐thirds of PLTs in normal persons remain in the circulation and the remainder one‐third is in an exchangeable pool in the spleen . Fontana et al went further to show that one‐third of PLTs collected in a single apheresis donation are recruited from the spleen . PLT post‐count predictions by cell separators that do not take into account this splenic release of PLTs will underestimate the effective PLT post‐count, which results in unnecessary PLT harvesting from plateletpheresis donors .…”

“…Fontana et al went further to show that one‐third of PLTs collected in a single apheresis donation are recruited from the spleen . PLT post‐count predictions by cell separators that do not take into account this splenic release of PLTs will underestimate the effective PLT post‐count, which results in unnecessary PLT harvesting from plateletpheresis donors . Current cell separator technologies including the Amicus Separator and Trima Accel (Caridian BCT, Lakewood, CO, USA) take into account this splenic release of PLTs and thus result in more efficient and accurate plateletpheresis collection yields than other cell separators .…”

“…Factors that influence apheresis PLT collection yield derive primarily from donor‐specific variables, but procedural differences and type of cell separator used can also affect PLT collection yield . Apheresis PLT collection via single‐needle (SN) kits take longer to achieve a given PLT yield compared to apheresis PLT collection via double‐needle (DN) kits due to the nature of the cyclical collection process of SN kits.…”

“…The Amicus Separator (Fenwal, Lake Zurich, IL, USA) can use either DN or SN kits and is more efficient than the Cobe CS‐3000 Plus (Fenwal‐Baxter, Deerfield, IL, USA), which obtains given target yields in longer collection times . Further, some cell separator machines take into account the splenic release of PLTs during apheresis donations, which if not factored in, could affect the procedure time and PLT yield .…”