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

Hans‐Gert Heuft · Rainer Moog · Eike G. Fischer · J. Zingsem

22 citations0/0 files storedTransfusion

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Blood donation and transfusion practices Platelet Disorders and Treatments Blood transfusion and management

Abstract

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 22 citations exist upstream.

References

1998Frequency of immediate adverse effects associated with apheresis donation 2005Complications of donor apheresis 2001Sustained decreases in platelet count associated with multiple, regular plateletpheresis donations 2002National audit of citrate toxicity in plateletpheresis donors 2006Prospective, paired crossover comparison of multiple, single‐needle plateletpheresis procedures with the Amicus and Trima Accel cell separators 2008The effect of double‐ and triple‐apheresis platelet product donation on apheresis donor platelet and white blood cell counts 2003First comparison of productivity and citrate donor load between the Trima® version 4 (dual‐stage filler) and the Trima Accel® (single‐stage filler) in the same donors 2006Prospective comparison of high‐dose plateletpheresis with the latest apheresis systems on the same donors

Cited by

2014Changes in pre- and post-donation haematological parameters in plateletpheresis donors 2016Recovery of Platelet Count among Apheresis Platelet Donors 2019Effect of plateletpheresis on hematocrit, hemoglobin and erythrocyte count: Meta-analysis 1980–2018 2020Analysis of Donor Safety in High Yield Plateletpheresis Procedures: An Experience from Tertiary Care Hospital in South India

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.