Evaluation of concurrent collection of in-line filtered platelets and packed red blood cells by multicomponent apheresis with three last-generation apparatuses

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.

Double Dose Plateletpheresis: A Savior to Shrinking Donor Pool and Platelet Inventory Management

The double dose plateletpheresis (DDP) is considered to be a cost effective way of preparing platelets, owing to the low incidence of infectious complications and by also minimizing allogeneic donor exposure to the patients. We aimed at collecting DDP at our center and study its effect on donor hematological parameters, evaluate the product quality and the adverse donor reactions thereafter. Double Dose Platelet was collected from 160 eligible apheresis donors on Amicus cell separator (Fenwal, Inc. Three Corporate Drive Lake Zurich, IL, USA). The donor hematological parameters, product yield, adverse effects on the donors, collection efficiency (CE) and collection rate of the machine were noted. A total of 160 DDPs were collected. The total blood volume processed to achieve the yield of 6.0 × 1011 was 3673.5 ± 276.56 mL. The average yield achieved was 6.14 ± 0.26 × 1011. The average run time was 68.05 ± 6.25 min. Total ACD used was 408.33 ± 33.81 mL. We observed significant relation of pre-donation donor platelet count and platelet yield (p < 0.001). The CE was 78.09 ± 5.15%. There was a significant drop in the post DDP platelet count (p < 0.01) causing no adverse effect. Fourteen donors (8.75%) experienced mild citrate related adverse events. DDP does not lead to major adverse effects and post DDP hematological parameters are also within the acceptable range. It also helps to maintain apheresis platelet inventory, reduce donor exposure, reduce donor requirement and reduce the cost of the product.

Donor Safety in Haemapheresis: Development of an Internet-Based Registry for Comprehensive Assessment of Adverse Events from Healthy Donors

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is an extensive but highly inconsistent body of literature regarding donor adverse events (AEs) in haemapheresis. As the reports diverge with respect to types and grading of AEs, apheresis procedures and machines, the range of haemapheresis-related AEs varies widely from about 0.03% to 6.6%.

METHODS

The German Society for Transfusion Medicine and Immunohaematology (DGTI) formed a 'Haemapheresis Vigilance Working Party' (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Hämapheresevigilanz; AGHV) to create an on-line registry for comprehensive and comparable AE assessment with all available apheresis devices in all types of preparative haemapheresis: plasmapheresis (PLS), plateletpheresis (PLT), red blood cell apheresis, all kind of leukaphereses (autologous/allogeneic blood stem cell apheresis, granulocyte apheresis, lymphocyte/monocyte apheresis) and all possible types of multi-component apheresis. To ensure the comparability of the data, the AGHV adopted the 'Standard for Surveillance of Complications Related to Blood Donation' from the International Society for Blood Transfusion in cooperation with the International Haemovigilance Network (IHN) and the American Association of Blood Banks for AE acquisition and automated evaluation. The registry is embedded in a prospective observational multi-centre study with a study period of 7 years.

RESULTS

A preliminary evaluation encompassed the time period from January, 2012 to December, 2015. During this time, the system proved to be safe and stable. Out of approximately 345,000 haemaphereses 16,477 AEs were reported (4.9%) from 20 participating centres. The majority of AEs occurred in PLSs (63%), followed by PLT (34.5%) and SC (2.2%). Blood access injuries (BAI) accounted for about 55% of the supplied AEs, whereas citrate toxicity symptoms, vasovagal reactions and technical events (e.g. disposable leakages, software failures) rather equally affected haemaphereses at 8-15%. Out of 12,348 finalized AEs, 8,759 (70.1%) were associated with a procedure-related break-off, with BAI being the prevailing cause (5,463/8,759; 62.4%). An automated centre- and procedure-specific AE evaluation according to the latest IHN standard and AGHV pre-settings is available within a few minutes.

CONCLUSIONS

An on-line electronic platform for comprehensive assessment and centre-specific automated evaluation of AEs in haemaphereses has been developed and proved to be stable and safe over a period of 4 years.

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.

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.

Donor safety in triple plateletpheresis: results from the German and Austrian Plateletpheresis Study Group multicenter trial

BACKGROUND

The objective was to investigate potential risks for apheresis donors associated with a triple-plateletpheresis (TP) program.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Eleven hemapheresis centers randomly assigned 411 repeat donors (ratio, 1:1.2) to either double plateletpheresis (DP; 185 donors) or TP (226 donors) with a platelet (PLT) target content of at least 5.0×10(11) PLTs/DP and at least 7.5×10(11) PLTs/TP. The primary endpoint was procedure-related postapheresis PLT count of at least 150×10(9) /L (probability, ≥98%). Secondary endpoints were apheresis characteristics and donor adverse reactions.

RESULTS

In 6 of 1133 DPs (0.5%) in 4 of 185 donors (2.2%) and in 20 of 1020 TPs (2.0%) in 14 of 226 donors (6.2%), postapheresis PLT counts were below 150×10(9) /L. There were marginal but significant differences in collection efficiency (DP, 69.2±9.1%; TP, 70.9±9.0%; p≤0.0001) and collection rate (DP, 10.4×10(9) ±2.3×10(9) PLTs/min; TP, 10.8×10(9) ±2.3×10(9) PLTs/min; p≤0.005). The PLT yields were 5.9×10(11) ±0.8×10(11) PLTs for DP and 8.3×10(11) ±0.9×10(11) PLT for TP (p≤0.0001) at processing times of 59±13 minutes (DP) versus 80±16 minutes (TP; p≤0.0001). Significant PLT recruitment (1.10±0.14 vs. 1.20±0.23; p<0.0001) was seen for both DP and TP. DP and TP did not differ with regard to venous access problems (VAPs) without discontinuation (3.8% for both), but DP induced fewer VAPs with discontinuation (1.1% vs. 3.0%; p<0.01). Mild citrate toxicity (1.7% vs. 3.9%; p<0.01) and circulatory reactions (0.4% vs. 2.2%; p<0.01) were more often noticed in TP, but caused no increase in discontinuations.

CONCLUSIONS

TP results in an increase in mild donor reactions but does not significantly impair donor safety or product quality.

The quality of platelet concentrates produced by COBE Spectra and Trima Accel cell separators during storage for 7 days as assessed by in vitro methods

BACKGROUND

The quality of platelet (PLT) concentrates (PCs) can be evaluated with various in vitro methods. A new technique, free oscillation rheometry (FOR), can be used to monitor coagulation properties of PCs and gives information on clotting time and coagulum elasticity. This study compared the quality of apheresis PCs produced by the COBE Spectra and Trima Accel cell separators (both Gambro BCT) during storage for 7 days with in vitro tests including FOR.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Apheresis PCs were collected with the COBE Spectra (n = 10) and Trima Accel (n = 10) cell separators. Swirling, blood gases, and metabolic variables were analyzed on Day 0. Samples taken on Days 1, 5, and 7 were also analyzed for hypotonic shock response (HSR), P-selectin, and glycoprotein (GP)Ib expression and evaluation of coagulation by FOR.

RESULTS

Swirling, HSR, and percent GPIb-expressing PLTs were well maintained for 7 days, whereas glucose decreased and lactate increased significantly during storage for both Spectra and Trima PCs. Percent P-selectin-expressing cells increased to the same extent in both types of PCs during storage. pH increased between Day 0 and Day 1 but then decreased. The clotting time remained constant throughout the storage period whereas the development of elasticity was reduced on Days 5 and 7 compared to Day 1 (p < 0.05) for both types of PCs.

CONCLUSION

The results indicate that the PLT quality after storage for 7 days is well preserved, although activation of PLTs occurs during storage as assessed by in vitro tests. No difference in PLT quality was observed between Spectra- and Trima-produced PCs.