Baruah Sukanya, Bajpai Meenu
Department of Transfusion Medicine, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Asian J Transfus Sci. 2020 Jan-Jun;14(1):23-27. doi: 10.4103/ajts.AJTS_138_17. Epub 2020 Jul 24.
Single-donor platelets (SDPs) prepared by sophisticated automated equipment offer several advantages over random-donor platelets and are being increasingly used to support thrombocytopenic patients. Different apheresis machines working on the principle of centrifugation are being used worldwide to collect platelets. This retrospective study was done to compare plateletpheresis on two automated cell seperators - Haemonetics MCS Plus and Trima Accel.
Data for 100 single-donor plateletpheresis procedures, fifty on each machine, were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Donor characteristics were analyzed by Student's -test and no significant difference was found between the two groups. The parameters compared between the two machines were yield, collection efficiency, blood volume processed, procedure time, acid-citrate-dextrose (ACD) used, leukodepletion achieved, quality control of the products, and adverse donor reactions.
Platelet yield (3.054 ± 0.14 vs. 3.120 ± 0.25), quality control of the platelets, leukodepletion achieved, and donor safety were comparable in both the machines. The blood volume processed (2230.74 ± 227.01 vs. 2452.90 ± 318.61), ACD used during procedure (265.48 ± 43.21 vs. 298.10 ± 53.32), procedural time (55.92 ± 13.00 vs. 68.86 ± 12.64), and the postprocedural decrease in donor count in Trima Accel (183.10 ± 23.99 vs. 161.44 ± 63.47) were significantly less than those in Haemonetics MCS Plus. The median collection efficiency of Trima Accel was found to be greater than Haemonetics MCS Plus (0.000649 vs. 0.000608, = 0.020).
Both Trima Accel and Haemonetics MCS Plus can collect SDPs safely and efficiently. Trima Accel has higher collection efficiency and reduced incidence of citrate-related adverse effects. It also has better potential to optimize productivity due to decreased procedural time.
通过先进的自动化设备制备的单供体血小板（SDP）相较于随机供体血小板具有诸多优势，且越来越多地用于支持血小板减少症患者。全球范围内使用基于离心原理工作的不同血液成分分离机来采集血小板。本回顾性研究旨在比较在两种自动化血细胞分离机——血细胞单采机MCS Plus和Trima Accel上进行的血小板单采。
回顾性收集并分析了100例单供体血小板单采程序的数据，每种机器各50例。通过学生t检验分析供体特征，两组之间未发现显著差异。比较两台机器的参数包括产量、采集效率、处理的血量、程序时间、使用的枸橼酸 - 葡萄糖（ACD）、实现的白细胞去除、产品质量控制以及供体不良反应。
两台机器的血小板产量（3.054 ± 0.14对3.120 ± 0.25）、血小板质量控制、实现的白细胞去除以及供体安全性相当。Trima Accel处理的血量（2230.74 ± 227.01对2452.90 ± 318.61）、程序中使用的ACD（265.48 ± 43.21对298.10 ± 53.32）、程序时间（55.92 ± 13.00对68.86 ± 12.64）以及Trima Accel中程序后供体计数的下降（183.10 ± 23.99对161.44 ± 63.47）均显著低于血细胞单采机MCS Plus。发现Trima Accel的中位采集效率高于血细胞单采机MCS Plus（0.000649对0.000608，P = 0.020）。
Trima Accel和血细胞单采机MCS Plus均可安全、高效地采集SDP。Trima Accel具有更高的采集效率，且枸橼酸盐相关不良反应的发生率更低。由于程序时间减少，它在优化生产率方面也具有更好的潜力。
