Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
TRANSFUSION AND APHERESIS SCIENCE, cilt.51, sa.2, ss.193-196, 2014 (SCI-Expanded)
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 × 1011 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 × 1011/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.