Prospective, paired crossover comparison of multiple, single-needle plateletpheresis procedures with the Amicus and Trima Accel cell separators

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.

Plastic-based acoustofluidic devices for high-throughput, biocompatible platelet separation

Platelet separation is a crucial step for both blood donation and treatment of essential thrombocytosis. Here we present an acoustofluidic device that is capable of performing high-throughput, biocompatible platelet separation using sound waves. The device is entirely made of plastic material, which renders the device disposable and more suitable for clinical use. We used this device to process undiluted human whole blood, and we demonstrate a sample throughput of 20 mL min-1, a platelet recovery rate of 87.3%, and a red/white blood cell removal rate of 88.9%. We preserved better platelet function and integrity for isolated platelets than those which are isolated using established methods. Our device features advantages such as rapid fabrication, high throughput, and biocompatibility, so it is a promising alternative to existing platelet separation approaches.

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.

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.

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.

Hemostatic function and transfusion efficacy of apheresis platelet concentrates treated with gamma irradiation in use for thrombocytopenic patients

BACKGROUND

During the transfusion of blood components, the transfer of allogeneic donor white blood cells (WBCs) can mediate transfusion-associated graft-versus-host disease (TA-GVHD). To minimize the reaction, exposure of blood products to gamma irradiation is currently the standard of care. The aim of our study was to evaluate and compare hemostatic function, transfusion efficacy, and safety of gamma-irradiated single-donor apheresis platelet concentrates (PCs) and of conventional non-irradiated PCs in patients with chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia.

METHODS

20 double-dose single-donor leukoreduced PCs were split in two identical units; one was gamma-irradiated with 25 Gy (study arm A) and the other remains non-irradiated (study arm B). Both units were stored under equal conditions. Hematologic patients were randomly assigned to receive gamma-irradiated or conventional non-irradiated PCs. Hemostatic function was evaluated by thrombelastography (TEG). TEG measurements were taken pre transfusion and 1 and 24 h post transfusion. TEG profiles were measured, noting the time to initiate clotting (R), the angle of clot formation (α), and the maximum amplitude (clot strength (MA)). Whole blood samples were collected from these thrombocytopenic patients at 1 and 24 h for PLT count increments (CIs) and corrected count increments (CCIs) with assessments of transfusion efficacy. Time to next PLT transfusion, transfusion requirement of RBCs, active bleeding, and adverse events (AEs), were analyzed.

RESULTS

No differences could be found in hemostatic function parameters (MA, R, and α) between study arms A and B (all p values > 0.096) pre transfusion as well as 1 and 24 h post transfusion. No differences between study arms A and B were observed for mean (± standard deviation (SD)) 1-hour CCI (12.83 ± 6.33 vs. 11.59 ± 5.97) and 24-hour CCI (6.56 ± 4.10 vs. 5.76 ± 4.05). Mean 1-hour CI and 24-hour CI were not significantly different in both study arms (p = 0.254 and p = 0.242 respectively). Median time to the next PC transfusion after study PC was not significantly different between groups: (2.4 vs. 2.2 days, p = 0.767). No differences could be found in transfusion requirement of red blood cells (p = 0.744) between both study arms. There were also no regarding bleeding, adverse events, and acute transfusion reaction(s).

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms safety of gamma-irradiated PCs for treatment thrombocytopenia. Hemostatic function, transfusion efficacy, bleeding, and safety of single-donor apheresis PCs treated with gamma irradiation versus untreated control PCs are comparable.

A computerized prediction model of hazardous inflammatory platelet transfusion outcomes

Background

Platelet component (PC) transfusion leads occasionally to inflammatory hazards. Certain BRMs that are secreted by the platelets themselves during storage may have some responsibility.

Methodology/Principal Findings

First, we identified non-stochastic arrangements of platelet-secreted BRMs in platelet components that led to acute transfusion reactions (ATRs). These data provide formal clinical evidence that platelets generate secretion profiles under both sterile activation and pathological conditions. We next aimed to predict the risk of hazardous outcomes by establishing statistical models based on the associations of BRMs within the incriminated platelet components and using decision trees. We investigated a large (n = 65) series of ATRs after platelet component transfusions reported through a very homogenous system at one university hospital. Herein, we used a combination of clinical observations, ex vivo and in vitro investigations, and mathematical modeling systems. We calculated the statistical association of a large variety (n = 17) of cytokines, chemokines, and physiologically likely factors with acute inflammatory potential in patients presenting with severe hazards. We then generated an accident prediction model that proved to be dependent on the level (amount) of a given cytokine-like platelet product within the indicated component, e.g., soluble CD40-ligand (>289.5 pg/109 platelets), or the presence of another secreted factor (IL-13, >0). We further modeled the risk of the patient presenting either a febrile non-hemolytic transfusion reaction or an atypical allergic transfusion reaction, depending on the amount of the chemokine MIP-1α (<20.4 or >20.4 pg/109 platelets, respectively).

Conclusions/Significance

This allows the modeling of a policy of risk prevention for severe inflammatory outcomes in PC transfusion.

Monitoring of platelet activation in platelet concentrates using transmission electron microscopy

OBJECTIVE

The quality of platelet concentrates (PC) is important for the in vivo recovery of thrombostasis in patients suffering from bleeding disorders and in tumor patients after chemotherapy. In this respect, activated platelets (PLT) cannot display their full functionality in the recipient and even can cause adverse effects. Therefore, we developed a transmission electron microscopy (TEM) method for quality assessment of PC.

METHODS

Score values taken from panorama TEM images describe the progress of PLT activation. To exemplify this method, i) 19 apheresis PC isolated with the Baxter Amicus system (BA) were compared with 14 PC obtained from pooled buffy coats (BC). ii) The score values of 33 PC derived from BA as well from BC were compared with flow-cytometric CD62P determinations by cross correlation. iii) Changes in the score value profiles during storage of a single pathogen-reduced BA PC were monitored over a period of 7 days.

RESULTS

The TEM evaluation described allows for demonstrating particular PLT activation stages. i) Significant differences between the percentages of the score values 0, 1 and 2 could be demonstrated in both processing groups. No significant differences were found comparing these two groups. ii) A weak correlation could be shown when comparing the percentages of score values 2 plus 3 with the percentage of CD62P-positive PLT. iii) The pathogen reduction affected slightly the score profiles during storage due to an increase of dead PLT.

CONCLUSION

Our investigations demonstrate the unique detailed quality information of PC obtained by the TEM method. This method can be performed in every routine electron microscopy laboratory.

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.

Evaluation of the performance of Trima Accel® v5.2 for the collection of concentrated high-dose platelet products and concurrent plasma from high platelet count donors, in Germany

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study was undertaken to test the ability of Trima Accel® version 5.2 to simultaneously collect concentrated high-dose leukoreduced platelet products and double doses of plasma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Random volunteers (18-65 years of age) with preprocedure platelet counts above 270 × 10(3) /μl were recruited among the blood center's apheresis donors. All complied with the center's donor selection criteria.

RESULTS

One hundred fourteen (114) collections were performed. Depending on which definition of single platelet dose is used (2.0 × 10(11) as prevalent standard in most European countries, and 3.0 × 10(11) as prevalent standard in the United States and Canada) in 107/114 (single dose = 2.0 × 10(11) ) and 39/114 (single dose = 3.0 × 10(11) ) instances, a triple platelet product was obtained. In 87 cases (76%), a double plasmaproduct (>430 ml) was collected, and in seven cases (6%), a single plasma product (>220 ml) was collected. In 20 procedures, only platelets without concurrent plasma were collected (18%). Overall procedure time was 87 ± 13 min and average platelet yield per procedure was 8.5 ± 1.4 × 10(11) (final storage concentration, 1,279 ± 153 × 10(3) /μl). The median residual leukocyte content per transfusion dose was 0.13 × 10(6) (0.02-0.98 × 10(6) ) for a single dose of 2.0 × 10(11) and 0.14 × 10(6) (0.02-0.98 × 10(6) ) for a single dose of 3.0 × 10(11) .

CONCLUSIONS

Trima Accel® version 5.2 allows for collection of concentrated high yield platelet products. It offers high productivity and reliably achieves the configured yield targets. Leukoreduction performance complied with both US and EU legal requirements. Collection as hyperconcentrates furthermore allowed for concurrent collection of double dose plasma in the majority of the procedures.

Frequency and specificity of the Trima Accel "verify WBCs" advisory: considerations for product management

BACKGROUND

The Trima Accel displays a "verify WBCs" message if the plateletpheresis product (PLT) may not be leukoreduced (LR). Most blood banks require sensitive white blood cell (WBC) testing of these PLTs by flow or Nageotte. We evaluated how often these PLTs were non-LR by European or US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria and whether sensitive WBC testing is necessary.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Phase 1 reviewed the frequency of this message with various procedure types and the flow WBC results for PLTs with or without the message. Phase 2 assessed how many FDA LR failures were detectable by a hematology analyzer. In Phase 3, PLTs were managed by hematology analyzer results.

RESULTS

In Phase 1, 3.8% of PLT-only and 11.1% of PLT-plasma collections had the "verify WBCs" message. Only 1% of "verify" PLTs contained more than 1 × 10(6) WBCs and only 0.5% were FDA LR failures. In Phase 2, 10 of 670 "verify" PLTs and one nonflagged PLT were FDA LR failures. Six of 11 LR failures had hematology analyzer WBC concentrations of 0.4 × 10(9) /L or higher. In Phase 3, "verify" PLTs were allowed in inventory if hematology analyzer WBC concentration was below 0.4 × 10(9) /L; inventory quality control showed no FDA LR failures by flow. Trima Version 6.0 software lowered the "verify" message frequency in PLT-plasma procedures but not in PLT-only procedures.

CONCLUSION

Four percent of Trima PLT collections have the "verify WBCs" message but almost all of these are LR by European and FDA criteria. Fifty percent of FDA LR failures were detectable by a hematology analyzer. Sensitive WBC testing of all "verify WBCs" PLTs may not be necessary to satisfy LR quality assurance requirements.

Platelet Recruitment during Multiple Donor Platelet Apheresis Differs between Cell Separators

SUMMARY: BACKGROUND: Recruitment of platelets (PLT) during donor PLT apheresis may facilitate the harvest of multiple units within a single donation. METHODS: We compared two PLT apheresis procedures (Amicus and Trima Accel) in a prospective, randomized, paired cross-over study in 60 donors. The 120 donations were compared for depletion of circulating PLT in the donors, PLT yields and PLT recruitment. A recruitment was defined as ratio of total PLT yield and donor PLT depletion > 1. RESULTS: Despite comparable differences of pre- and post-apheresis PLT counts (87 × 10(9)/l in Trima Accel vs. 92 × 10(9)/l in Amicus, p = 0.383), PLT yields were higher with Trima Accel (7.48 × 10(11) vs. 6.06 × 10(11), p < 0.001), corresponding to a higher PLT recruitment (1.90 vs. 1.42, p < 0.001). We observed a different increase of WBC counts after aphereses, which was more pronounced with Trima Accel than with Amicus (1.30 × 10(9)/l vs. 0.46 × 10(9)/l, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both procedures induced PLT recruitment. This was higher in Trima Accel, contributing to a higher yield in spite of a comparable depletion of circulating PLT in the donors. This recruitment facilitates the harvest of multiple units within a single donation and seems to be influenced by the procedure utilized. The different increases of circulating donor white blood cells after donation need further investigation.

[Platelet immunology and the immune response]

Platelets exert not only hemostatic activities, but also pro-inflammatory effects. Platelet-linked inflammation seems essentially related to their capacity of secreting cytokines, chemokines and related molecules. This activity is important in terms of concentration of secreted products. This secretory function confers to platelets a regulatory role in immunity. Besides, platelets do exhibit non-self infectious danger detection molecules on their surfaces, belonging in particular to the "Toll-like receptor family"; through this property, platelets can bind infectious agents but also deliver differential signals for the secretion of cytokines and chemokines. Platelets, which are non-nucleated cells deprived of nuclear DNA, possess however some cellular machinery which permits intracellular signalling and even the production of RNA transcripts for certain cytokines. Last, platelets express variant surface determinants of hemostatic molecules (referred to as HPA antigens) along with HLA class I variant molecules, the function of which on platelets is still unknown. An intriguing question is to reconcile those diverse properties and to understand whether the pro-inflammatory secretory process can affect the immunogenicity of transfused, allogeneic, platelet components.

Association between polymorphisms in the vesicular monoamine transporter 1 gene (VMAT1/SLC18A1) on chromosome 8p and schizophrenia

Linkage studies have suggested a susceptibility locus for schizophrenia (SZ) exists on chromosome 8p21-22. The vesicular monoamine transporter 1 gene (VMAT1), also known as SLC18A1, maps to this SZ susceptibility locus. Vesicular monoamine transporters are involved in the presynaptic vesicular packaging of monoamine neurotransmitters, which have been postulated to play a role in the etiology of SZ. Variations in the VMAT1 gene might affect transporter function and/or expression, and might be involved in the etiology of SZ. Genotypes of 62 patients with SZ and 188 control subjects were obtained for 4 missense single nucleotide polymorphisms (Thr4Pro, Thr98Ser, Thr136Ile, Val392Leu) and 2 noncoding single nucleotide polymorphisms (rs988713, rs2279709). All cases and controls were of European descent. The frequency of the minor allele of the Thr4Pro polymorphism was significantly increased in SZ patients when compared to controls (p = 0.0140; d.f. = 1; OR = 1.69; 95% CI = 1.11-2.57). Assuming a recessive mode of inheritance, the frequency of homozygote 4Pro carriers was significantly increased in the SZ patients when compared to controls (24 vs. 8%, respectively; p = 0.0006; d.f. = 1; OR = 3.74; 95% CI = 1.703-8.21). Haplotype analysis showed nominal significance for an individual risk haplotype (p = 0.013); however, after permutation correction, the global p value did not attain a statistically significant level (p = 0.07). Results suggest that variations in the VMAT1 gene may confer susceptibility to SZ in patients of European descent. Further studies are necessary to confirm this effect, and to elucidate the role of VMAT1 in central nervous system physiology and possible involvement in the genetic origins of SZ.