Search

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 × 10 11 /min) respectively; P < 0.001). The PLT yield/unit was higher with the Haemonetics (4.4 ± 0.8 vs. 3.9 ± 0.8 × 10 11 , 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., (© 2017 International Society for Apheresis, Japanese Society for Apheresis, and Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy.)

The use of apheresis equipment to collect blood components has rapidly increased in the past years. A variety of apheresis instruments are now available on the market for double dose plateletpheresis. We evaluated an apheresis instrument, the Trima Accel, with regard to platelet (PLT) yield, collection efficiency (CE), and collection rate (CR) in a retrospective, randomized study in 110 donors. The Trima Accel cell separator efficiently collected double dose platelets with median PLT yields of 3.7 × 10 11 , mean CE of 74.99 ± 14.40% and mean CR of 0.096 ± 0.012 × 10 11 /min., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Platelet (PLT) transfusions play an important role in patients with thrombocytopenia or severely impaired platelet function. Platelet concentrates are prepared from whole-blood donations or by plateletpheresis. In recent years, different instruments have been developed to perform plateletpheresis. We evaluated an apheresis instrument, the Haemonetics MCS(®) + with regard to PLT yield, collection efficiency (CE), and collection rate (CR) in a retrospective, randomized study in 526 donors. In this system, we used leukoreduction filters post collection to obtain leukoreduced products. The Haemonetics MCS(®) + cell separator efficiently collected apheresis platelets with median PLT yields of 3.7 × 10(11), mean CE of 66.69 ± 13.73% and mean CR of 0.063 ± 0.013 × 10(11)/min. The median blood volume processed was 3290 (2420-4370) ml, and the median volume of acid citrate dextrose-A (ACD-A) used in collections on the device was 385 (196-517) ml. Also, this device allowed the collection of white blood cell (WBC) reduced plateletpheresis with mean 0.07 ± 0.15 × 10(6) WBC content. No serious donor or recipient reactions occurred., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

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., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)