Comparative study of automated plateletpheresis using five different apheresis systems in a tertiary care hospital

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.

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.

The effects of autoflow management on flow-rate alerts, collection efficiency, and collection rate during plateletpheresis

BACKGROUND

In 2018, Trima Accel software version 6.4 with autoflow management released in China. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the effects of autoflow management on plateletpheresis procedures, specifically concerning flow-rate alerts, collection efficiency (CE), and collection rate (CR).

METHODS

A total of 2526 procedures using Trima Accel version 6.4 from Nov 2018 to Jan 2019 were included as the test arm in this study. Another 2043 procedures using version 5.1.9 from Nov 2017 to Jan 2018 were included as the control arm. We compared the low-flow alerts and no-flow alerts, collection efficiency (CE), and collections rate (CR) between the two study arms. Also, we analyzed the incidence of autoflow increases and autoflow decreases of version 6.4.

RESULT

The incidence of low-flow alerts for test and control was 16.6 % and 55.3 %(χ² = 754.024, p = 0.000), with the maximum number of low-flow signals of 6 and 51, respectively. The incidence of no-flow alerts for test and control was 7.8 % and 45.0 %(χ² = 843.695, p = 0.000), with a maximum of 16 and 27, respectively. The CE of version 6.4 was slightly higher than version 5.1.9 (69.7 ± 6.7 % versus 68.6 ± 7.4 %). Similarly, CR was higher for version 6.4 (7.7 ± 2.1versus 7.0 ± 1.8 × 10⁹/min). For software version 6.4, autoflow increases or autoflow decreases triggered in 99.8 % donors.

CONCLUSION

Autoflow management shows significant advantages in reducing alerts and subsequent manual intervention. We observe a higher CR and CE using Trima Accel version 6.4 than version 5.1.9, which leads to a more efficient platelet collection.

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.

Analysis of Donor Safety in High Yield Plateletpheresis Procedures: An Experience from Tertiary Care Hospital in South India

The apheresis platelets are the preferred blood components for the thrombocytopenic hemato-oncology patients. The one of the important factors for post transfusion increment is the dose of the platelet product infused. The minimum platelet product yield is defined but the amount of maximum possible platelets collection from a single donor is not universally defined. There is lots of apprehension in our country for apheresis procedures harvesting more than a standard unit. This retrospective observational study was conducted to determine safety of high yield plateletapheresis collection among Indian donors This retrospective observational study was conducted for a period of 15 months including all consecutive plateletapheresis procedures. The informed consent had been obtained from all donors including high yield plateletapheresis (Yield ≥ 5 × 10¹¹). The apheresis product was subjected to platelet count. The donor adverse reactions were recorded along with procedural details. Post procedure complete blood count was done for the donors who consented for post procedure blood sample draw A total 569 procedures were performed during this period including 174 high yield procedure. The 526 procedures were analyzed for adverse donor reactions. The 43 were excluded for adverse donor reaction analysis due to yield less than 3 × 10¹¹ (n = 43). The adverse reactions rate between high yield procedures (18/174, 10.34%) and normal yield (20/352, 5.68%) were not statistically different (p = 0.052). The phlebotomy related complication (3.23%) followed by citrate toxicity (2.28%) were the two most common adverse reaction observed. The adverse reactions associated with high yield plateletapheresis procedures are comparable to normal yield procedures in term of overall adverse reactions observed and post procedural platelet counts. This can be beneficial to patients by providing products of greater yield.

Quantity, quality, and functionality of peripheral blood cells derived from residual blood of different apheresis kits

BACKGROUND

Research with primary human white blood cell (WBC) subpopulations requires high quantity, quality, and functionality of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) as a source to further characterize cellular subpopulations such as T and B lymphocytes, monocytes, or natural killer cells. Apart from buffy coats derived from whole blood, residual blood from preparative hemapheresis kits are used as a source for PBMCs, but knowledge on the yield and functionality of cells from different devices is limited.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We evaluated quantity and quality of PBMCs isolated from apheresis kits of two apheresis devices (AMICUS, Fenwal; and Trima Accel, Terumo BCT), the latter being our standard source for many years. PBMCs derived from Trima or AMICUS were tested for yield and subtype composition by flow cytometry. Functionality was assessed by cytokine induction of CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells and by degranulation. Moreover, cytotoxic activity of natural killer cells was quantified by a real-time killing assay.

RESULTS

Mean numbers of isolated cells were 5.5 ± 2.4 × 10⁸ for AMICUS, and 10.3 ± 6.4 × 10⁸ for Trima Accel, respectively. The proportion of WBC subtypes corresponded to well-known numbers from whole blood, with minor differences between the two apheresis systems. Likewise, minor differences in cytokine induction were found in stimulated CD4⁺ or CD8⁺ T cells. Finally, PBMCs derived from the two systems showed comparable cytotoxic activity.

CONCLUSION

PBMC derived from residual blood of the AMICUS and Trima Accel apheresis devices serve as an economic and easily accessible source for functional PBMCs with comparable quantity and quality to PBMCs derived from whole blood.

Changes in pre- and post-donation platelet function in plateletpheresis donors

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the changes of platelet (PLT) function and coagulation time before and after plateletpheresis donation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The healthy donors were divided into four groups according to the annual number of plateletpheresis donation: 20 times group, 15 times group, 10 times group and 5 times group. The healthy non-blood donors were selected as controls. The donation interval was 14 days. The blood samples were collected before plateletpheresis donation and after 30min, 7 d, and 14 d of donation for determination of coagulation time, PLT function, plasma protein, serum iron and blood routine change.

RESULTS

After 30min of plateletpheresis donation, the PLT function decreased and the coagulation time was prolonged. However, PLT function recovered to the pre-collection after 7 d of plateletpheresis donation and coagulation time recovered to the pre-collection after 14 d of plateletpheresis donation. Additionally, there was no difference regarding blood coagulation time and PLT function among blood donors and controls. The plasma protein and serum iron levels in 20 times and 15 times groups were within the normal reference range.

CONCLUSION

The frequency of plateletpheresis donation will not affect PLT function, coagulation time, plasma protein and serum iron in donors.

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.

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.

Comparing peripheral blood stem cell collection using the COBE Spectra, Haemonetics MCS+, and Baxter Amicus

Peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) have become the most common source of hematopoietic cells for allogeneic or autologous blood and marrow transplantation (BMT). We performed an evaluation of PBSC collections using three different apheresis systems in two major transplantation centers in Singapore. Patients undergoing autologous BMT and donors collecting for allogeneic BMT were harvested using the COBE Spectra, Haemonetics MCS+, or Baxter Amicus. There were 99 Spectra collections (61 were autologous), 81 MCS+ collections (35 were autologous) and 38 Amicus collections (33 were autologous). Our data shows that the Amicus not only processed larger peripheral blood volumes but also yielded larger PBSC volume (P-value<0.05). In terms of PBSC products, the Spectra produced more WBC, WBC/liter blood processed, and WBC/kg (P-value<0.05). The Spectra and MCS+ produced comparable amount of CD34+ cells. Amicus collected 50% less platelets compared to Spectra and MCS+. The total CD34+ cells in the PBSC products was linearly correlated to the circulating CD34+ cells using Spectra, MCS+, and Amicus. Our results suggest that, compared to MCS+ and Amicus, collecting PBSC using the COBE Spectra can produce more WBC with a similar number of CD34+ cells. With a linear correlation of circulating CD34+ cells to the total CD34+ cells in the products, the availability of an automated procedure, no rotating seal, and a small extracorporeal volume, the Spectra appears to be the preferred machine for PBSC collection.

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.