Are All Leucodepleted Platelet Concentrates Equivalent?

Abstract

Abstract Background and Objectives: A number of technologies are available for the production of leucocyte‐depleted platelet concentrates (PCs). This study compared the characteristics of PCs prepared by three commonly used techniques. Materials and Methods: In total, fifteen units of leucoyte‐depleted PCs prepared by the Cobe LRS Turbo apheresis system, Haemonetics MCS+ with in‐line filter and filtration of PCs derived from pooled buffy coats (BCs) were transferred into the same standard container. Markers to assess status/activation and microvesiculation of platelets as well as platelet injury were measured. Results: pH was well maintained in all types of PCs. The expression of CD62P was higher in Cobe LRS Turbo on day 1 but became equivalent between the three methods on day 5. A significant correlation was found between the expression of CD62P on platelet surface and soluble CD62P in the plasma. The degree of phosphatidylserine (PS) exposure was slightly higher in Cobe LRS Turbo and BC‐PCs than Haemonetics MCS+ on day 1. However, on day 5 both apheresis PC values were higher than BC‐PCs. A significant correlation was found between PS exposure and microvesiculation. Conclusion: Leucodepleted PCs prepared by the three methods were different in terms of storage lesion and microvesiculation. The clinical significance of these findings remains to be investigated.