Abstract
Different platelet preparation techniques have not previously been compared directly and simultaneously with respect to in vivo platelet viability. Using a dual-label technique with 111In and 114mIn, platelet apheresis was compared with the platelet-rich plasma (PRP) procedure with respect to platelet recovery and survival (n=4). Furthermore, a continuous flow cell separator (Cobe 2997) and an intermittent apheresis system (Haemonetics V50) were compared with each other (n=4). No differences in platelet viability were found between the PRP-platelets and the apheresis-platelets. Also no differences were found between the two apheresis systems. Although different platelet preparation methods result in a varying degree of platelet activation, no difference in platelet viability has been observed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
