INTRODUCTION: Platelet refrigeration decreases the risk of bacterial contamination and may preserve function better than standard-of-care room temperature (RT) storage. Benefits could include lower transfusion-related complications, decreased costs, improved hemostasis in acutely bleeding patients, and extended shelf life. In this study, we compared the effects of 22°C and 4°C storage on the functional and activation status of apheresis platelets. METHODS: Apheresis platelets (n = 5 per group) were stored for 5 days at 22°C with agitation (RT) versus at 4°C with agitation (4°C + AG) and without (4°C). Measurements included platelet counts, mean platelet volume, blood gas analytes, aggregation response, thromboelastography, thromboxane B2 and soluble CD40 ligand release, activation markers, and microparticle formation. RESULTS: Sample pH levels were within acceptable limits for storage products (pH 6.2-7.4). Platelet glucose metabolism (P < 0.05), aggregation response (adenosine diphosphate: RT 0; 4°C + AG 5.0 ± 0.8; 4°C 5.6 ± 0.9; P < 0.05), and clot strength (maximum amplitude: RT 58 ± 2; 4°C + AG 63 ± 2; 4°C 67 ± 2; P < 0.05) were better preserved at 4°C compared with RT storage. Refrigerated samples were more activated compared with RT (P < 0.05), although thromboxane B2 (P < 0.05) and soluble CD40 ligand release (P < 0.05) were higher at RT. Agitation did not improve the quality of 4°C-stored samples. CONCLUSIONS: Apheresis platelets stored at 4°C maintain more viable metabolic characteristics, are hemostatically more effective, and release fewer proinflammatory mediators than apheresis platelets stored at RT over 5 days. Given the superior bacteriologic safety of refrigerated products, these data suggest that cold-stored platelets may improve outcomes for acutely bleeding patients.
INTRODUCTION: Platelet refrigeration decreases the risk of bacterial contamination and may preserve function better than standard-of-care room temperature (RT) storage. Benefits could include lower transfusion-related complications, decreased costs, improved hemostasis in acutely bleedingpatients, and extended shelf life. In this study, we compared the effects of 22°C and 4°C storage on the functional and activation status of apheresis platelets. METHODS: Apheresis platelets (n = 5 per group) were stored for 5 days at 22°C with agitation (RT) versus at 4°C with agitation (4°C + AG) and without (4°C). Measurements included platelet counts, mean platelet volume, blood gas analytes, aggregation response, thromboelastography, thromboxane B2 and soluble CD40 ligand release, activation markers, and microparticle formation. RESULTS: Sample pH levels were within acceptable limits for storage products (pH 6.2-7.4). Platelet glucose metabolism (P < 0.05), aggregation response (adenosine diphosphate: RT 0; 4°C + AG 5.0 ± 0.8; 4°C 5.6 ± 0.9; P < 0.05), and clot strength (maximum amplitude: RT 58 ± 2; 4°C + AG 63 ± 2; 4°C 67 ± 2; P < 0.05) were better preserved at 4°C compared with RT storage. Refrigerated samples were more activated compared with RT (P < 0.05), although thromboxane B2 (P < 0.05) and soluble CD40 ligand release (P < 0.05) were higher at RT. Agitation did not improve the quality of 4°C-stored samples. CONCLUSIONS: Apheresis platelets stored at 4°C maintain more viable metabolic characteristics, are hemostatically more effective, and release fewer proinflammatory mediators than apheresis platelets stored at RT over 5 days. Given the superior bacteriologic safety of refrigerated products, these data suggest that cold-stored platelets may improve outcomes for acutely bleedingpatients.
Authors: Adam R Hardy; Pamela B Conley; Jiansong Luo; Jeffrey L Benovic; Alastair W Poole; Stuart J Mundell Journal: Blood Date: 2005-01-21 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Samina Yasmin Khan; Marguerite R Kelher; Joanna M Heal; Neil Blumberg; Lynn K Boshkov; Richard Phipps; Kelly F Gettings; Nathan J McLaughlin; Christopher C Silliman Journal: Blood Date: 2006-06-13 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Aleksandar M Babic; Emma C Josefsson; Wolfgang Bergmeier; Denisa D Wagner; Richard M Kaufman; Leslie E Silberstein; Thomas P Stossel; John H Hartwig; Karin M Hoffmeister Journal: Transfusion Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Emma C Josefsson; Harry H Gebhard; Thomas P Stossel; John H Hartwig; Karin M Hoffmeister Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2005-03-01 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Scott Cooper; Sarah Lloyd; Anthony Koch; Xingxing Lin; Katie Dobbs; Thomas Theisen; Matt Zuberbuehler; Kaley Bernhardt; Michael Gyorfi; Tanner Tenpas; Skyler Hying; Sarah Mortimer; Christine Lamont; Marcus Lehmann; Keith Neeves Journal: J Comp Physiol B Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 2.200
Authors: Vassilis L Tzounakas; Alkmini T Anastasiadi; Dimitrios G Karadimas; Redisa A Zeqo; Hara T Georgatzakou; Olga D Pappa; Olga A Papatzitze; Konstantinos E Stamoulis; Issidora S Papassideri; Marianna H Antonelou; Anastasios G Kriebardis Journal: Blood Transfus Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 3.443
Authors: Katie L Lannan; Majed A Refaai; Sara K Ture; Craig N Morrell; Neil Blumberg; Richard P Phipps; Sherry L Spinelli Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2015-12-18 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: Prajeeda M Nair; Shaunak G Pandya; Shatha F Dallo; Kristin M Reddoch; Robbie K Montgomery; Heather F Pidcoke; Andrew P Cap; Anand K Ramasubramanian Journal: Br J Haematol Date: 2017-06-04 Impact factor: 6.998
Authors: DaShawn A Hickman; Christa L Pawlowski; Ujjal D S Sekhon; Joyann Marks; Anirban Sen Gupta Journal: Adv Mater Date: 2017-11-22 Impact factor: 30.849