Premium
In vivo recovery and survival of apheresis and whole blood‐derived platelets: a paired comparison in healthy volunteers
Author(s) -
Arnold Donald M.,
Heddle Nancy M.,
Kulczycky Myron,
Carruthers Julie,
Sigouin Christopher,
Blajchman Morris A.
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
transfusion
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.045
H-Index - 132
eISSN - 1537-2995
pISSN - 0041-1132
DOI - 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2006.00709.x
Subject(s) - platelet , apheresis , blood product , whole blood , in vivo , medicine , plateletpheresis , platelet transfusion , andrology , immunology , surgery , biology , microbiology and biotechnology
BACKGROUND: Methods of platelet preparation may alter the recovery and survival characteristics of platelets following transfusion. As suggested by a recent clinical trial, platelet recovery may be better preserved with apheresis platelet preparations than with platelets prepared from whole blood by the platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) method. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In vivo platelet recovery and survival of autologous leukoreduced (LR) apheresis platelets and autologous filter‐LR PRP platelets were compared in 22 healthy volunteers using a paired crossover design. On the same day, each participant gave one apheresis platelet donation and one whole blood donation from which platelets were recovered from the PRP. The sequence of donations was randomly assigned for each participant. Following 5 days of storage and bacterial screening, a sample from each platelet product was labeled with either 51 chromium or 111 indium (randomly assigned) and both samples were simultaneously re‐infused into the original donor. Recovery and γ‐function platelet survival were calculated for each platelet product using the multiple hit mathematical model. RESULTS: Five day stored LR‐apheresis platelets had 18.8 percent better recovery, and 32.9 percent longer γ‐survival than filter‐LR PRP platelets. Stored apheresis platelets had lower p‐selectin expression and higher morphology scores than stored PRP platelets. CONCLUSIONS: Filter‐LR PRP platelet preparation appears to adversely affect platelet recovery and survival characteristics. The reasons for this effect are not clear. These results may not apply to all apheresis and PRP methods of platelet preparation.