Comparative study of plateletpheresis using Baxter CS 3000 plus and Haemonetics MCS 3P

Plateletpheresis in the Era of Automation: Optimizing Donor Safety and Product Quality Using Modern Apheresis Instruments

The increases in major surgeries, transplantations and speciality clinics have significantly increased the utilization of platelet concentrates including single donor platelets (SDP). The advantages of SDP or apheresis platelet have been discussed elaborately by previous authors as compared to random donor platelets. Here we share our experiences of plateletpheresis procedures using the modern apheresis machines with regards to product quality and donor safety. This study included 3016 procedures of plateletpheresis (1397 on Amicus and 1619 on Trima accel cell separators) on eligible donors using recommended apheresis kits. A target yield of 3 × 1011 was set as the end point of each procedure. Donor details, procedure details and donor adverse reactions if any were documented. Statistical analysis was done using the SPSS statistical package (version 13, USA). Of the total 6276 donors screened 2049 (32.6%) were deferred due to various reasons. Out of remaining 4227 eligible donors; 3016 (71.4%) underwent plateletphereis procedures based on the requirement of SDP by the patients. Mean pre-procedure platelet count and hematocrit in donors were 188.3 × 106/mL and 41.7% respectively. Mean procedure time in Amicus (76.6 min) was significantly more than the Trima accel (64.3 min) (p = 0.02). Platelet yield by Trima accel and Amicus was 2.96 × 1011 and 3.08 × 1011 respectively (p = 0.061). A total of 40 donors (1.33%) suffered adverse effect during or after apheresis procedures. While the modern plateletpheresis devices are both donor and user friendly at the same time they provide quality product consistently in lesser time.

Comparative assessment of single-donor plateletpheresis by Haemonetics® MCS® plus and Trima Accel®

BACKGROUND

Single-donor platelets (SDPs) prepared by sophisticated automated equipment offer several advantages over random-donor platelets and are being increasingly used to support thrombocytopenic patients. Different apheresis machines working on the principle of centrifugation are being used worldwide to collect platelets. This retrospective study was done to compare plateletpheresis on two automated cell seperators - Haemonetics^® MCS^® Plus and Trima Accel^®.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data for 100 single-donor plateletpheresis procedures, fifty on each machine, were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Donor characteristics were analyzed by Student's t-test and no significant difference was found between the two groups. The parameters compared between the two machines were yield, collection efficiency, blood volume processed, procedure time, acid-citrate-dextrose (ACD) used, leukodepletion achieved, quality control of the products, and adverse donor reactions.

RESULTS

Platelet yield (3.054 ± 0.14 vs. 3.120 ± 0.25), quality control of the platelets, leukodepletion achieved, and donor safety were comparable in both the machines. The blood volume processed (2230.74 ± 227.01 vs. 2452.90 ± 318.61), ACD used during procedure (265.48 ± 43.21 vs. 298.10 ± 53.32), procedural time (55.92 ± 13.00 vs. 68.86 ± 12.64), and the postprocedural decrease in donor count in Trima Accel^® (183.10 ± 23.99 vs. 161.44 ± 63.47) were significantly less than those in Haemonetics^® MCS^® Plus. The median collection efficiency of Trima Accel^® was found to be greater than Haemonetics^® MCS^® Plus (0.000649 vs. 0.000608, P = 0.020).

CONCLUSION

Both Trima Accel^® and Haemonetics^® MCS^® Plus can collect SDPs safely and efficiently. Trima Accel^® has higher collection efficiency and reduced incidence of citrate-related adverse effects. It also has better potential to optimize productivity due to decreased procedural time.

Improvement of plateletpheresis via technical modification on the MCS+

BACKGROUND

With the advantage of easy operation and high reliability, Haemonetics multicomponent collection system (MCS+) is widely used as a blood cell separator in clinical application.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of technical parameter modification as utilised on the MCS+ to improve the quality of platelet yielded as well as donor comfort.

METHODS

After informed consent, a total of 118 donors, well matched for baseline parameters, were included in the study from December 2012 to April 2013. Sixty-one donors underwent single-dose plateletpheresis (SDP), and the other 57 donors underwent double-dose plateletpheresis (DDP) before and after technical modification on the MCS+, respectively, according to the manufacturer's instructions. The procedures were evaluated, focusing on whole blood processed (WBP), processing time (PT) and number of cycles were measured, as well as the quality of products.

RESULTS

No severe adverse reaction was found during donation. WBP, PT and number of cycles after modification were all reduced significantly in both SDP and DDP groups (P < 0·01). In addition, 80·51 % (95 in 118) of the total post-modification products were qualified, presenting with high quality. Besides, the comfort of donors was also improved probably because of the reduced PT.

CONCLUSION

Adjustment of the relevant technical parameters on MCS+ could produce a beneficial effect on the procedure measures and ensure a high-quality platelet production.

Automated platelet collection using the latest apheresis devices in an Indian setting

In a developing nation like India where there is a scarcity of resources and voluntary donors, provision of safe and good quality blood and its components is a huge challenge. The demand for platelets is increasing constantly due to better management of various patient categories, specifically hemato-oncological cases, where there is an increased demand of platelet transfusion. The use of apheresis single donor platelets (SDPs) has been attributed to increased gap between demand and supply of whole blood derived random donor platelets (RDPs). Moreover, the other benefits of SDPs such as decreased donor exposure and simplification of inventory management cannot be overlooked. However, the increased costs and logistic problems, compounded by the lack of awareness, limit the donor recruitment and procedures for SDPs. In Indian scenario, there are no specific guidelines or standards available which can be followed, while simultaneously addressing the associated problems. In this review, we have tried to analyze the various problems of donor selection, donor safety and the quality issues regarding plateletpheresis. Based on this we have tried to give certain recommendations which might help the centers in resolving the problems related to plateletpheresis.

Study of Single Donor Platelet (SDP) Preparation by Baxter CS 3000 plus and Haemonetics MCS plus

BACKGROUND

In plateletpheresis blood is withdrawn from a donor in anticoagulant solution and separated into components. Platelets are retained and the remaining components are returned to the individual.

METHODS

The present study was aimed to compare the platelet yield and collection efficiency of Baxter CS 3000 plus and Haemonetics MCS plus cell separators and to study adverse donor reactions. Donors were selected as per the set criteria for single donor platelet (SDP) preparation. Donors' samples for pre donation and post donation platelet count were collected in EDTA and for product counts in the sample pouch attached with apheresis kits. The results were obtained by haematology analyzer. Platelet yield and collection efficiency were calculated.

RESULT

Results were tabulated for both the cell separators and analyzed. Platelet yield was marginally better with Baxter CS 3000 plus but collection efficiency was better with the Haemonetics MCS plus. Residual white cells were more in single donor platelet concentrate preparation by MCS plus. Adverse donor reactions were similar with both cell separators, in form of mild citrate toxicity and mild to moderate pain at phlebotomy site.

CONCLUSION

Findings of the present study along with other factors such as less priming time for kit, portability of cell separator, better patient comfort owing to single arm venous access and lesser cost suggest that Haemonetics MCS plus is a better choice as compared to Baxter CS 3000 plus cell separator.