z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
A Prospective Crossover Trial Comparing Performance and in vitro Platelet Quality of Three New Apheresis Devices with Current Equipment
Author(s) -
Susanne M. Picker,
Stela Radojska,
Birgit Gathof
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
transfusion medicine and hemotherapy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.971
H-Index - 39
eISSN - 1660-3818
pISSN - 1660-3796
DOI - 10.1159/000095749
Subject(s) - apheresis , platelet , crossover study , medicine , plateletpheresis , quality (philosophy) , current (fluid) , crossover , intensive care medicine , computer science , engineering , pathology , physics , alternative medicine , placebo , quantum mechanics , artificial intelligence , electrical engineering
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.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom