Comparison of plateletpheresis on the Fresenius AS.TEC 204 and Haemonetics MCS 3p

Effect of donor parameters and cell separators on yield of apheresis platelet and their impact on corrected count increment in aplastic anemia patients

BACKGROUND

The new cell separators make it simple to collect single donor platelets (SDP), although the platelet yield may vary depending on the cell separator used and donor-related clinical and laboratory variables.

AIMS

This study aims to study the factors affecting SDP yield and corrected count increment (CCI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study was carried out at a tertiary care facility in northern India, over 4 years (May 2017-April 2020), data were retrieved and analyzed.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Categorical variables were presented as proportions, while continuous variables were presented as mean with standard deviation, P < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

We found a positive correlation between predonation platelet count and yield (r = 0.243, P = 0.000). No such significant correlation was found with Hb concentration (r = 0.025, P = 0.720), age (r = 0.016, P = 0.820), sex (r = -0.038, P = 0.584), and weight (r = -0.025, P = 0.714). Maximum platelet yield and minimum time were seen with Trima. Only 39.3% (33/84) meet the 24 h CCI. The majority of patients did not meet the desired CCI could be due to the patients' clinical condition. On logistic regression, we found a significant association of 24 h CCI with product yield (odds ratio [OR] = 0.168, P = 0.015) and posttransfusion platelet count (OR = 0.454, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The only donor-related factor that influences yield is predonation platelet count, whereas 24 h CCI may depend on the clinical status of the patient and yield.

A comparative study of five plateletpheresis machines in a tertiary care center of India: AmiCORE vs COM.TEC vs Haemonetics MCS+ vs Spectra Optia vs Trima Accel

BACKGROUND

Single donor apheresis platelets are superior in quality, but their usage is limited in a developing country due to cost and time constraints. Hence the product obtained must exceed in terms of yield, donor safety and technical convenience. Previous literature available on cell separators is on older versions.

AIMS

Prospective comparison of 5 latest cell separators (AmiCORE, COM.TEC, Haemonetics MCS+, SpectraOptia and TrimaAccel) for product yield, performance variables and donor adverse effects.

MATERIAL & METHODS

From October 2019 - March 2020, 1108 donors were randomly allotted to a cell separator. Post-donation sample was taken from the donor 15-20 minutes after procedure completion. The platelet yield from the product collected was measured twice (day 0 and day 1). Donor demography, pre-and post-procedural donor peripheral blood values, performance and product variables were statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

AmiCORE had an optimal collection efficacy (44.6%) and collection rate (0.037 x 1011/minute). Haemonetics MCS+ had a better collection efficacy (48.4%) and rate (0.038 x 1011/minute). Spectra Optia achieved least procedural time (59.5 minutes), donor adverse effects (6.3%); highest collection efficacy (52.8%) and rate (0.056 x 1011/minute). Trima Accel achieved highest collection rate (0.056 x 1011/minute) and the least product volume (228 ml).

CONCLUSION

Highest collection efficacy was achieved by Trima Accel, highest collection rate by Trima Accel and Spectra Optia, lowest donor adverse effects by Spectra Optia and least number of procedural troubleshooting by COM.TEC. Apart from this, fiscal factors and service availability also need to be considered before choosing a cell separator.

Comparison of Plateletpheresis on the Haemonetics and Trima Accel Cell Separators

The use of apheresis equipment to collect platelets has rapidly increased in recent years. We compared two apheresis instruments (Haemonetics MCS + and Trima Accel) with regard to platelet (PLT) yield and efficiency, and collection rate (CR) in a retrospective study. Overall 120 data obtained by Haemonetics and Trima systems (N = 60 for each) were randomly selected among 400 plateletpheresis procedures performed at the Apheresis Unit of Kayseri Education and Research Hospital between July 2016 and January 2017. The CR was significantly higher with the Haemonetics compared to the Trima (0.076 ± 0.016 vs. 0.065 ± 0.015 (PLT × 10¹¹ /min) respectively; P < 0.001). The PLT yield/unit was higher with the Haemonetics (4.4 ± 0.8 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8 × 10¹¹ , P = 0.001). Haemonetics and Trima Accel instruments collected platelets efficiently. We hope that these data will be a guide in selecting equipment for apheresis units.

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.

Comparison of plateletpheresis on the Fenwal Amicus, Fresenius COM.TEC, and Trima Accel Cell separators

Blood component donations by apheresis have become more common in modern blood transfusion practices. We compared three apheresis instruments (Fenwal Amicus, Fresenius COM.TEC, and Trima Accel) with regard to platelet (PLT) yield, collection efficiency (CE), and collection rate (CR). The single-needle or double-needle plateletpheresis procedures of the three instruments were compared in a retrospective, randomized study in 270 donors. The blood volume processed was higher in the COM.TEC compared with the Amicus and Trima. Also there was a significantly higher median volume of ACD used in collections on the COM.TEC compared with the Amicus and Trima. The PLT yield was significantly lower with the COM.TEC compared with the Amicus and Trima. Additionally, the CE was significantly lower with the COM.TEC compared with the Amicus and Trima. There was no significant difference in median separation time and CR between the three groups. When procedures were compared regarding CE by using Amicus device, it was significantly higher in single-needle than double-needle plateletpheresis. When double-needle Amicus system was compared with double-needle COM.TEC system, CE and PLT yield were significantly higher with Amicus system. When single-needle Amicus system was compared with single-needle Trima system, CE and PLT yield were significantly higher with Trima system. All instruments collected PLTs efficiently. However, the CE was lower with the COM.TEC compared with the Amicus and Trima. Also, we found Amicus single-needle system collected PLTs more efficiently compared with the double-needle system. CE and PLT yields were significantly higher with the single-needle Trima instrument compared with the single-needle Amicus device.

Comparative Analysis of Various Aspects of Plateletpheresis on the Fenwal Amicus and Fresenius COM.TEC Cell Separator Instruments

OBJECTIVE

To compare the Fenwal Amicus and the Fresenius COM.TEC apheresis instruments regarding donor peripheral blood parameters, operational variables of the instruments, and quality control parameters of the product obtained.

METHODS

We performed 100 platelet collections from 100 voluntary donors using the 2 studied devices. We measured platelet count using an automated analyzer and analyzed the activation statuses using a flow cytometer.

RESULTS

The median time needed to perform the procedures was significantly longer with the COM.TEC. However, the product we obtained using the Amicus instrument showed higher degrees of platelet-activation. All products we obtained with both instruments had white blood cell counts of less than 5 × 10(6) per bag. We observed no statistical difference regarding collection efficiency and collection rates between the devices.

CONCLUSION

Both instruments collected platelets efficiently, with minimal donor discomfort. Compared with the COM.TEC instrument, the Amicus reached the platelet target yield more quickly; however, it displayed an increase in platelet activation.

Comparison of double dose plateletpheresis on the Fenwal Amicus, Fresenius COM.TEC and Trima Accel cell separators

BACKGROUND

A variety of apheresis instruments are now available on the market for double dose plateletpheresis. We compared three apheresis devices (Fenwal Amicus, Fresenius COM.TEC and Trima Accel) with regard to processing time, platelet (PLT) yield, collection efficiency (CE) and collection rate (CR).

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

The single-needle or double-needle double plateletpheresis procedures of the three instruments were compared in a retrospective, randomized study in 135 donors.

RESULTS

In the pre-apheresis setting, 45 double plateletpheresis procedures performed with each instrument revealed no significant differences in donor's age, sex, weight, hemoglobin, white blood cell and PLT count between three groups. The blood volume processed to reach a target PLT yield of ≥ 6 × 10(11) was higher in the COM.TEC compared with the Amicus and Trima (4394 vs. 3780 and 3340 ml, respectively; p < 0.001). Also there was a significantly higher median volume of ACD used in collections on the COM.TEC compared with the Amicus and Trima (426 vs. 387 and 329 ml, respectively; p < 0.001). There was a significantly higher median time needed for the procedures on the COM.TEC compared with the Amicus and Trima (66 vs. 62 and 63 min, respectively; p = 0.024). The CE was significantly higher with the Trima compared with the Amicus and COM.TEC (83.57 ± 17.19 vs. 66.71 ± 3.47 and 58.79 ± 5.14%, respectively; p < 0.001). Also, there was a significantly higher product volume on the Trima compared with the Amicus and COM.TEC (395.56 vs. 363.11 and 386.4 ml, respectively; p = 0.008). Additionally, the CR was significantly lower with the COM.TEC compared with the Amicus and Trima (0.092 ± 0.011 vs. 0.099 ± 0.013 and 0.097 ± 0.013 plt × 10(11)/min, respectively; p = 0.039). There was no significant differences in PLT yield between the three groups (p = 0.636).

CONCLUSIONS

Trima single-needle device collected double dose platelets more efficiently than Amicus and COM.TEC double-needle devices. Blood volume processed, ACD-A volume, and median separation time was significantly higher with the COM.TEC. Also, the CR was significantly lower with the COM.TEC.

Comparison of double dose plateletpheresis on the Fenwal Amicus, Fresenius COM.TEC and Trima Accel cell separators

BACKGROUND

A variety of apheresis instruments are now available on the market for double dose plateletpheresis. We compared three apheresis devices (Fenwal Amicus, Fresenius COM.TEC and Trima Accel) with regard to processing time, platelet (PLT) yield, collection efficiency (CE) and collection rate (CR).

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

The single-needle or double-needle double plateletpheresis procedures of the three instruments were compared in a retrospective, randomized study in 135 donors.

RESULTS

In the pre-apheresis setting, 45 double plateletpheresis procedures performed with each instrument revealed no significant differences in donor's age, sex, weight, hemoglobin, white blood cell and PLT count between three groups. The blood volume processed to reach a target PLT yield of ≥ 6 × 10(11) was higher in the COM.TEC compared with the Amicus and Trima (4394 vs. 3780 and 3340 ml, respectively; p < 0.001). Also there was a significantly higher median volume of ACD used in collections on the COM.TEC compared with the Amicus and Trima (426 vs. 387 and 329 ml, respectively; p < 0.001). There was a significantly higher median time needed for the procedures on the COM.TEC compared with the Amicus and Trima (66 vs. 62 and 63 min, respectively; p = 0.024). The CE was significantly higher with the Trima compared with the Amicus and COM.TEC (83.57 ± 17.19 vs. 66.71 ± 3.47 and 58.79 ± 5.14%, respectively; p < 0.001). Also, there was a significantly higher product volume on the Trima compared with the Amicus and COM.TEC (395.56 vs. 363.11 and 386.4 ml, respectively; p = 0.008). Additionally, the CR was significantly lower with the COM.TEC compared with the Amicus and Trima (0.092 ± 0.011 vs. 0.099 ± 0.013 and 0.097 ± 0.013 plt × 10(11)/min, respectively; p = 0.039). There was no significant differences in PLT yield between the three groups (p = 0.636).

CONCLUSIONS

Trima single-needle device collected double dose platelets more efficiently than Amicus and COM.TEC double-needle devices. Blood volume processed, ACD-A volume, and median separation time was significantly higher with the COM.TEC. Also, the CR was significantly lower with the COM.TEC.

Risk factors associated with the occurrence of adverse events in plateletpheresis donation

Objective

To recognize the profile of platelet donors and the profile of the plateletpheresis session as well as to investigate the main adverse events of platelet donation using plateletpheresis and associated risk factors.

Methods

This retrospective, cross-sectional and analytical study was performed with a quantitative approach by analyzing 316 donation files from February 2010 to December 2011. The IBM SPSS Statistics program was used for data processing and analysis. The chi-square test was used to verify whether there was an association between factors related to the procedure and the donor, and the adverse events that occurred.

Results

The mean age of platelet donors was 40 years old (standard deviation = 8.9), with the prevalent age group being between 40 and 49 years old; the prevalent blood type was O positive (53.8%), the mean duration of the procedure was 73 min and the mean amount of anticoagulant used was 360 mL. The association between procedure duration and the volume of anticoagulant was inverse and statistically significant; the longer the procedure and the greater the volume of anticoagulant used, the less adverse reactions occurred.

Conclusion

The low incidence of adverse events indicates that the procedure is well tolerated by donors. Obtaining data regarding the incidence of adverse events is a way of promoting a dynamic review of medical and nursing teams to improve the safety and comfort of the donor.

Single-donor platelet apheresis: observational comparison of the new Haemonetics Universal Platelet protocol with the previous Concentrated Single Donor Platelet protocol

BACKGROUND

The Haemonetics MCS(®)+ cell separator is a device dedicated to the collection of leucoreduced single-donor platelets. The new Universal Platelet protocol has been introduced to improve the efficiency of apheresis and increase flexibility in the collection of leucoreduced platelets in combination with red blood cells and plasma. In this study we compared its performance with that of the previous Concentrated Single Donor Platelet protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This observational study had a within-subject design and involved 135 donors who underwent plateletapheresis with both protocols. The primary end-point was collection efficiency; secondary end-points were other performance indices, such as procedure time and collection rate. A satisfaction questionnaire was also administered to the 135 donors to evaluate opinions on duration, comfort and side-effects of donations with the two protocols. For each parameter of interest, we tested the difference between the two protocols within donors, using a one-sample t-test or exact McNemar's test as appropriate.

RESULTS

The collection efficiency of the Universal Platelet protocol was significantly higher than that of the Concentrated Single Donor Platelet protocol (58% vs 47%; p<0.0001). The Universal Platelet Protocol collected more platelets in less time, leading to a higher collection rate (6.5 vs 5.0×10(9)/min; p<0.0001). In general, donors found apheresis with the Universal Platelet protocol of equal duration or faster, of similar or greater comfort and with an equal number or fewer side effects, compared with the Concentrated Single Donor Platelet protocol.

DISCUSSION

Our study endorses the use of the new Universal Platelet protocol in daily transfusion practice since it substantially improves collection efficiency in leucoreduced platelet procedures compared with the Concentrated Single Donor Platelet protocol. This technical improvement seems to be accompanied by equal or greater comfort for the donor.

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

SUMMARY: 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 pre-apheresis PLT count was higher with the COM.TEC than with the Amicus (198 × 10(3)/μl vs. 223 × 10(3)/μl; p = 0.035). The blood volume processed to reach a target PLT yield of ≥3.3 × 10(11) 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 × 10(11) (p = 0.325). All products obtained with both instruments had WBC counts lower than 5 ↔ 10(6), 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 × 10(11) vs. 0.057 ± 0.008 × 10(11) 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.