| Literature DB >> 30655711 |
Madeleine Lu1, Dalia L Lezzar1, Eszter Vörös1, Sergey S Shevkoplyas1.
Abstract
Millions of blood components including red blood cells, platelets, and granulocytes are transfused each year in the United States. The transfusion of these blood products may be associated with adverse clinical outcomes in some patients due to residual proteins and other contaminants that accumulate in blood units during processing and storage. Blood products are, therefore, often washed in normal saline or other media to remove the contaminants and improve the quality of blood cells before transfusion. While there are numerous methods for washing and volume reducing blood components, a vast majority utilize centrifugation-based processing, such as manual centrifugation, open and closed cell processing systems, and cell salvage/autotransfusion devices. Although these technologies are widely employed with a relatively low risk to the average patient, there is evidence that centrifugation-based processing may be inadequate when transfusing to immunocompromised patients, neonatal and infant patients, or patients susceptible to transfusion-related allergic reactions. Cell separation and volume reduction techniques that employ centrifugation have been shown to damage blood cells, contributing to these adverse outcomes. The limitations and disadvantages of centrifugation-based processing have spurred the development of novel centrifugation-free methods for washing and volume reducing blood components, thereby causing significantly less damage to the cells. Some of these emerging technologies are already transforming niche applications, poised to enter mainstream blood cell processing in the not too distant future.Entities:
Keywords: granulocytes; platelets; red blood cells; transfusion; volume reduction; washing
Year: 2019 PMID: 30655711 PMCID: PMC6322496 DOI: 10.2147/JBM.S166316
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Blood Med ISSN: 1179-2736
A summary of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the technologies described in this study
| Technology | Pros | Cons | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manual | Low cost | Higher risk of contamination; | ||
| Automated | COBE 2991 | Most commonly used; | Significant increase in potassium and hemolysis found post-wash; | |
| ACP 215 | Reduces risk of bacterial contamination; | Unable to consistently reduce IgA levels for IgA-deficient patients; | ||
| Autotransfusion | Discontinuous | Cell saver Elite, Cell Saver 5, and OrthoPAT | On par with conventional cell processors for removing potassium, free hemoglobin, platelet, and WBC from whole blood; | Activates cells that adhere to the bowl and releases leukoattractants and thromboplastic materials; |
| Continuous | CATS | Produces RBC concentrates of a high hematocrit; | Provides inconsistent hemoglobin removal; | |
| Membrane filters | Hollow fiber | PSN 120, #23.05, Sangofer, ErySep, and 3M | Effectively removes DMSO (PSN 120); | Causes platelet activation; |
| Physical | PAF and HemoSep | Reduces amount of target solute (eg, potassium | Filters not compatible with current rapid blood transfusion devices; | |
| Spinning | CytoMate and LOVO | Effectively removes DMSO (CytoMate | No protocol in place for washing and volume reducing whole blood products; requires large capital investment upfront | |
| Novel | Sedimentation, inertial focusing | Effectively removes 80% of free hemoglobin and 90% of total free protein from stored RBC units; efficiently reduces IgA to levels safe for IgA-deficient recipients; does not lead to significant buildup of potassium and free hemoglobin during 24-hour post-wash storage time; low cost and portable | Has only been tested using small volumes (~50 mL); further research and development needed to compete with current washing systems | |
Abbreviations: CATS, continuous autotransfusion system; CIK, cytokine-induced killer; DMSO, dimethyl sulfoxide; PAF, potassium absorbing filters; RBCs, red blood cells; WBCs, white blood cells.