Triple apheresis platelet concentrate quality after pneumatic tube system, conveyor box, and courier transport: An observational study.

Abstract

Background and AimsPlatelets are prone to activation from handling; they are therefore transported as gently as possible, most commonly by courier. Speedier methods like pneumatic tube system (PTS) transport could improve patient care but may subject platelets to mechanical stress. To test the impact of mechanical stress caused by transport, we compared a PTS with a conveyor box and courier transport on apheresis platelet function.MethodsFourteen apheresis platelet concentrate triple donations were analyzed by light transmission aggregometry (LTA), rotational thrombelastometry (ROTEM), and flow cytometry before and after indoor transport over 800 m by PTS, conveyor, and courier, respectively, while recording shocks and vibrations with a high‐frequency acceleration data logger. Shock index scores were calculated as shock intensity (g‐force) times frequency.ResultsThe shock index was 81 for courier, 6279 for conveyor, and 9075 for PTS. Flow cytometry revealed no significant difference in platelet surface expression of CD62p before (16%) and after transport via courier (15%), conveyor (14%), or PTS (16%). LTA with adenosine phosphate and thrombin receptor‐activating peptide‐6 resulted in comparable platelet aggregation for courier, conveyor, and PTS. ROTEM assays showed no relevant differences in coagulation time, clot formation time, and maximum clot firmness between transport modes.ConclusionThough the mechanical challenge was smallest with courier transport, there were no significant differences in platelet activation or aggregation between the three transport modes. These data contradict restrictions on the use of PTSs for platelet concentrate transport.