Comparison of plateletpheresis on the Fresenius AS.TEC 204 and Haemonetics MCS 3p

Abstract

This is an attempt at comparing two cell separators for plateletpheresis, namely the Fresenius AS.TEC 204 and Haemonetics MCS 3p, at a tertiary care center in India. Donors who weighed between 55-75 kg, who had a hematocrit of 41-43%, and platelet counts of 250x10(3)-400x10(3)/microl were selected for the study. The comparability of the donors who donated on the two cell separators were analysed by t-test independent samples and no significant differences were found (P>0.05). The features compared were time taken for the procedure, volume processed on the separators, adverse reactions of the donors, quality control of the product, separation efficiency of the separators, platelet loss in the donors after the procedure, and the predictor versus the actual yield of platelets given by the cell separator. The volume processed to get a target yield of >3x10(11) was equal to 2.8-3.2 l and equal in both the cell separators. Symptoms of citrate toxicity were seen in 4 and 2.5% of donors who donated on the MCS 3p and the AS.TEC 204, respectively, and 3 and 1% of donors, respectively, had vasovagal reactions. All the platelet products collected had a platelet count of >3x10(11); 90% of the platelet products collected on the AS.TEC 204 attained the predicted yield that was set on the cell separator where as 75% of the platelet products collected on the MCS 3p attained the target yield. Quality control of the platelets collected on both the cell separators complied with the standards except that 3% of the platelets collected on the MCS 3p had a visible red cell contamination. The separation efficiency of the MCS 3p was higher, 50-52% as compared to the 40-45% on the AS.TEC 204. A provision of double venous access, less adverse reactions, negligible RBC contamination with a better predictor yield of platelets makes the AS.TEC 204 a safer and more reliable alternative than the widely used Haemonetics MCS 3p.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.

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