Asian Journal of Transfusion Science
Home About Journal Editorial Board Search Current Issue Ahead of print Back Issues Instructions Subscribe Login  Users: 804 Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 14  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 23-27

Comparative assessment of single-donor plateletpheresis by Haemonetics® MCS® plus and Trima Accel®


Department of Transfusion Medicine, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, New Delhi, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Meenu Bajpai
Department of Transfusion Medicine, Institute of Liver and Biliary Sciences, D1, Vasantkunj, New Delhi - 110 070
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ajts.AJTS_138_17

Rights and Permissions

Background: 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®. Materials and Methods: Data for 100 single-donor plateletpheresis procedures, fifty on each machine, were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Donor characteristics were analyzed by Student's t-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. Results: 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, P = 0.020). Conclusion: 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.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed383    
    Printed22    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded0    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

Association Contact us | Sitemap | Advertise | What's New | Feedback | Copyright and Disclaimer

2006 - Asian Journal of Transfusion Science | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 10th November, 2006