Literature DB >> 17111420

Comparison of plateletpheresis on the Fresenius AS.TEC 204 and Haemonetics MCS 3p.

Sudha Ranganathan1.   

Abstract

This is an attempt at comparing two cell separators for plateletpheresis, namely the Fresenius AS.TEC 204 and Haemonetics MCS 3p, at a tertiary care center in India. Donors who weighed between 55-75 kg, who had a hematocrit of 41-43%, and platelet counts of 250x10(3)-400x10(3)/microl were selected for the study. The comparability of the donors who donated on the two cell separators were analysed by t-test independent samples and no significant differences were found (P>0.05). The features compared were time taken for the procedure, volume processed on the separators, adverse reactions of the donors, quality control of the product, separation efficiency of the separators, platelet loss in the donors after the procedure, and the predictor versus the actual yield of platelets given by the cell separator. The volume processed to get a target yield of >3x10(11) was equal to 2.8-3.2 l and equal in both the cell separators. Symptoms of citrate toxicity were seen in 4 and 2.5% of donors who donated on the MCS 3p and the AS.TEC 204, respectively, and 3 and 1% of donors, respectively, had vasovagal reactions. All the platelet products collected had a platelet count of >3x10(11); 90% of the platelet products collected on the AS.TEC 204 attained the predicted yield that was set on the cell separator where as 75% of the platelet products collected on the MCS 3p attained the target yield. Quality control of the platelets collected on both the cell separators complied with the standards except that 3% of the platelets collected on the MCS 3p had a visible red cell contamination. The separation efficiency of the MCS 3p was higher, 50-52% as compared to the 40-45% on the AS.TEC 204. A provision of double venous access, less adverse reactions, negligible RBC contamination with a better predictor yield of platelets makes the AS.TEC 204 a safer and more reliable alternative than the widely used Haemonetics MCS 3p. Copyright (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17111420     DOI: 10.1002/jca.20108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Apher        ISSN: 0733-2459            Impact factor:   2.821


  5 in total

1.  Comparison of Plateletpheresis on the Fenwal Amicus and Fresenius Com.Tec Cell Separators.

Authors:  Fevzi Altuntas; Ismail Sari; Ismail Kocyigit; Leylagul Kaynar; Sibel Hacioglu; Ahmet Ozturk; Mehmet Oztekin; Musa Solmaz; Bulent Eser; Mustafa Cetin; Ali Unal
Journal:  Transfus Med Hemother       Date:  2008-09-16       Impact factor: 3.747

2.  Single-donor platelet apheresis: observational comparison of the new Haemonetics Universal Platelet protocol with the previous Concentrated Single Donor Platelet protocol.

Authors:  Ugo Salvadori; Cosetta Minelli; Bianca Graziotin; Ivo Gentilini
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2013-12-04       Impact factor: 3.443

3.  Initial values of donor hematocrit and efficiency of plateletpheresis.

Authors:  Elvedin Landzo; Alma Sofo-Hafizovic; Vesna Cetkovic-Basic
Journal:  Acta Inform Med       Date:  2013

4.  Automation in Blood Centre: Its impact on Blood Safety.

Authors:  Snehalata C Gupte
Journal:  Asian J Transfus Sci       Date:  2015-04

5.  Risk factors associated with the occurrence of adverse events in plateletpheresis donation.

Authors:  Maria Helena Barbosa; Karla Fabiana Nunes da Silva; Dieska Quintiliano Coelho; Jordânia Lumênia Tavares; Luciana Falcão da Cruz; Márcia Helena Kanda
Journal:  Rev Bras Hematol Hemoter       Date:  2014-04-03
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.