Article2005

A randomized crossover trial comparing three plateletpheresis machines

José Luis Bueno · Fernando José García López · Emma Castro · Luisa Barea

42 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 Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control Blood transfusion and management

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare three different apheresis machines with the same donors regarding the processing time required to obtain a 3.5 x 10(11) platelet (PLT) dose and acceptance by donors. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized crossover trial was performed to evaluate the differences between the Amicus Crescendo (Baxter Biotech Corp.), the MCS Plus (Haemonetics Corp.), and the Trima Accel (Gambro BCT). Donations from 51 donors were compared for time adjusted to obtain a standard 3.5 x 10(11) PLT dose (TSD3.5), efficiency, adverse reactions, yield, leukodepletion, machine accuracy, and donor preferences. Processing times were measured by chronometer. The same vein access was used during all three processes in each donor. In the statistical analysis, to take into account the nonindependence of several measurements from the same donor, generalized estimating equations were used with an autoregressive correlation matrix. RESULTS: The Accel produced a TSD3.5 (mean +/- SEM) of 47.9 +/- 1.0 min; the Amicus, 60.3 +/- 1.0 min; and the MCS Plus, 66.7 +/- 1.0 (p < 0.0001). The Amicus presented the greatest efficiency (87.5%; p < 0.0028). The MCS Plus demonstrated the highest capacity for leukodepletion (p < 0.0002) despite one process presenting more than 1 x 10(6) white blood cells per unit. The MCS Plus also measured the processing time with the greatest accuracy. No severe adverse effects were observed. The donors preferred the Accel (61%) followed by the Amicus (35%) and the MCS Plus (4%; p < 0.0001) and the processing speed was the most highly valued measure (55%). CONCLUSIONS: The Accel is the fastest and, because of this advantage, the machine preferred by donors. The Amicus was the most efficient and the MCS Plus was the only one not to underestimate the processing time.

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 — 42 citations exist upstream.

References

2003The annual cost of blood transfusions in the UK 1998Frequency of immediate adverse effects associated with apheresis donation

Cited by

2006Prospective, paired crossover comparison of multiple, single‐needle plateletpheresis procedures with the Amicus and Trima Accel cell separators 2006Prospective comparison of high‐dose plateletpheresis with the latest apheresis systems on the same donors 2006Evaluation of concurrent collection of in‐line filtered platelets and packed red blood cells by multicomponent apheresis with three last‐generation apparatuses 2014Comparison of plateletpheresis on the Fenwal Amicus, Fresenius COM.TEC, and Trima Accel Cell separators 2009Paired crossover study of two plateletpheresis systems concerning platelet product quality and donor comfort 2011Platelet Recruitment during Multiple Donor Platelet Apheresis Differs between Cell Separators 2013The relationship of platelet yield, donor’s characteristic and apheresis instruments in China 2007Do we really know the real risks of apheresis donation?

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.