Use of random versus apheresis platelet concentrates

Abstract

The respective use of random (RPC) and apheresis (APC) platelet concentrates is highly heterogeneous among countries, ranging from 10 to 98% RPC in countries supposed to provide a similar transfusion service to patients. Moreover, when considering each country in the past 10 years, one can observe that some have changed their policy, switching from a majority of APC to RPC or vice versa. This presentation intends to analyse which factors may impact such decisions. For many years, the only available platelet component was a RPC obtained from whole blood donation by a two centrifugation steps process, the “platelet rich plasma” or PRP method. Since the beginning of the 1970s, APCs became available, with in fact many different techniques leading to many APCs that may not be equivalent. Since the end of the 1980s, a new method of RPC preparation was developed, using the buffy-coat (BC–PC), providing a blood component with highly preserved platelet functions as compared to RPCs prepared by the PRP technique. Finally, the use of each of these components either native, or leuco-reduced, or suspended in a storage solution, or processed with a pathogen inactivation technique adds new layers of complexity to compare them. Innumerable references can be found in the literature describing in vitro functional parameters of platelet concentrates. Although it is clear that BC–RPC retain much more their in vitro functions than PRP–RPC, indicating that no one should use the latter any more, it is much more difficult to distinguish differences between other PCs. Conversely, only a very few studies have been published related to a comparison of clinical efficacy of RPC versus APC, the endpoints being mainly CCI. Similarly to the in vitro studies, although RPC prepared with the PRP method show the lowest CCIs, no clear difference exists between “modern” RPC and APC. Another factor that may impact policy decision is the occurrence of adverse reactions in recipients. When considering only comparable data, for example leuco-reduced RPC versus leuco-reduced APC, there is now evidence that the latter is more associated with adverse reactions in recipients: data from hemovigilance in France show that, although no difference is noted for febrile non haemolytic transfusion reactions, nor for bacteria contamination, the incidence of allergic adverse reactions is about four times higher with APC as compared with RPC. Other aspects may impact the decision: the fact that using APC in place of RPC reduces the total donor exposure of patients was considered critical in some countries to reduce the risk of transmission of blood transmissible disease. Finally, the cost of the components, much higher for APC may be considered.