Prospective comparison of high‐dose plateletpheresis with the latest apheresis systems on the same donors

Abstract

To improve productivity of automated platelet (PLT) collection, the industry has introduced new instruments or modifications to existing equipment. With the same 8 donors for double (DDC) and triple-dose PLT collection (TDC), the Baxter Amicus (AM), the Haemonetics MCS Plus (MCS+), and the Gambro Trima Accel (TA) were evaluated focusing on yield, duration, and citrate donor load. Target endpoints were set at 5.5 x 10(11) to 6.0 x 10(11) PLTs (DDC) and 7.5 x 10(11) to 8.0 x 10(11) PLTs (TDC) in up to 100 and 120 minutes' donation time, respectively. TA was the most efficient system (74.5 +/- 3.9%) with significant differences from AM (71.1 +/- 3.9%; p = 0.028) and MCS+ (64.0 +/- 7.7%; p = 0.002). TA had advantages over AM for collection rate (10.9 x 10(9) +/- 2.2 x 10(9) vs. 10.1 x 10(9) +/- 1.5 x 10(9) PLTs/min; p = 0.382), whole blood processed (3928 +/- 611 mL vs. 4219 +/- 727 mL; p = 0.382), and time to obtain an established standard dose (TSD 2.5(EU), 30.2 +/- 5.6 vs. 37.7 +/- 5.5 min; TSD 3.5(US), 42.2 +/- 7.8 min vs. 52.7 +/- 7.7 min; p = 0.015), whereas AM was slightly superior in PLT yield (2.81 x 10(11) +/- 0.21 x 10(11) vs. 2.76 x 10(11) +/- 0.31 x 10(11)/unit; p = 0.645). Owing to the lowest draw (42.3 +/- 3.2 mL/min; p < 0.001) and collection rates (6.0 x 10(11) +/- 1.5 x 10(11)/min; p = 0.021), MCS+ was the slowest significantly (p < 0.001) but compensated with fewer citrate reactions owing to lower citrate infusion rates (0.78 +/- 0.11 mL/min/L; p = 0.028). High-dose plateletpheresis was performed efficiently and safely with all three instruments. AM had advantages in PLT yield, and MCS+, in donor comfort. TA was the fastest in obtaining an established standard dose and, because of this advantage, the machine with the highest practical impact in routine use.