Quality validation of platelets obtained from the Haemonetics and Trima Accel automated blood-collection systems.

Hsuan-Hui Wang, Li-Na Liao, Chi-Ling Lin, L. Yen, Y. Hsiao, J. Ko
{"title":"Quality validation of platelets obtained from the Haemonetics and Trima Accel automated blood-collection systems.","authors":"Hsuan-Hui Wang, Li-Na Liao, Chi-Ling Lin, L. Yen, Y. Hsiao, J. Ko","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-38756/v1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nPlatelet transfusion is required to treat haemo-oncology or trauma patients. Platelet apheresis (PPH) performed with apheresis equipment has increased rapidly in recent years. Leucocyte-reduced platelet apheresis (LRPH) can reduce the risk of platelet refractoriness and febrile nonhemolytic transfusion reactions (FNHTRs) for transfusion. Accordingly, this study aimed to investigate and compare the platelet metabolic and functional responses between PPH performed with Haemonetics and LRPH performed with Trima Accel cell separator.\n\n\nMETHODS\nThe qualities of platelets collected through PPH and LRPH were evaluated in terms of visual appearance, morphology, platelet-aggregation changes, metabolic activities, and bacterium-screening test during 5-day storage. Statistical analyses included two-sample t-test and generalised estimating equation(GEE) method.\n\n\nRESULTS\nDuring 5-day storage in LRPH, residual leucocytes were all <1.0×106, and the parameters of platelet function were as follows: platelet aggregated to agonists such as adenosine 5'-diphosphate (ADP) and collagen, and the extent of shape change and pO2 showed no statistically significant difference between PPH and LRPH. The hypotonic shock reaction (HSR) on days 0, 1, and 3 were significantly higher in LRPH than in PPH (71.78±6.92 vs. 64.10±7.42; p=0.002; 71.53±8.98 vs. 62.96±9.84; p=0.007; 68.05±7.28 vs. 57.76±6.80; p<0.0001, respectively). Values of mean platelet volume (MPV) were statistically larger in PPH than in LRPH on days 0, 1, and 3. On day 5, the swirling score was higher in LRPH than in PPH. The mean lactate levels had no statistically significant difference between PPH and LRPH. Moreover, no growth was observed through bacterium-screening test conducted on 40 samples.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nComparison of LRPH and PPH products collected from the Trima Accel and Haemonetics automated blood-collection systems, respectively, revealed that both products possessed good platelet qualities even though additional processes are needed to reduce leucocytes. Furthermore, investigating the outcomes of other apheresis instruments with focus on the safety of donors, products, and recipients is necessary.","PeriodicalId":94255,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion clinique et biologique : journal de la Societe francaise de transfusion sanguine","volume":"70 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfusion clinique et biologique : journal de la Societe francaise de transfusion sanguine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-38756/v1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Platelet transfusion is required to treat haemo-oncology or trauma patients. Platelet apheresis (PPH) performed with apheresis equipment has increased rapidly in recent years. Leucocyte-reduced platelet apheresis (LRPH) can reduce the risk of platelet refractoriness and febrile nonhemolytic transfusion reactions (FNHTRs) for transfusion. Accordingly, this study aimed to investigate and compare the platelet metabolic and functional responses between PPH performed with Haemonetics and LRPH performed with Trima Accel cell separator. METHODS The qualities of platelets collected through PPH and LRPH were evaluated in terms of visual appearance, morphology, platelet-aggregation changes, metabolic activities, and bacterium-screening test during 5-day storage. Statistical analyses included two-sample t-test and generalised estimating equation(GEE) method. RESULTS During 5-day storage in LRPH, residual leucocytes were all <1.0×106, and the parameters of platelet function were as follows: platelet aggregated to agonists such as adenosine 5'-diphosphate (ADP) and collagen, and the extent of shape change and pO2 showed no statistically significant difference between PPH and LRPH. The hypotonic shock reaction (HSR) on days 0, 1, and 3 were significantly higher in LRPH than in PPH (71.78±6.92 vs. 64.10±7.42; p=0.002; 71.53±8.98 vs. 62.96±9.84; p=0.007; 68.05±7.28 vs. 57.76±6.80; p<0.0001, respectively). Values of mean platelet volume (MPV) were statistically larger in PPH than in LRPH on days 0, 1, and 3. On day 5, the swirling score was higher in LRPH than in PPH. The mean lactate levels had no statistically significant difference between PPH and LRPH. Moreover, no growth was observed through bacterium-screening test conducted on 40 samples. CONCLUSION Comparison of LRPH and PPH products collected from the Trima Accel and Haemonetics automated blood-collection systems, respectively, revealed that both products possessed good platelet qualities even though additional processes are needed to reduce leucocytes. Furthermore, investigating the outcomes of other apheresis instruments with focus on the safety of donors, products, and recipients is necessary.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
从Haemonetics和Trima Accel自动血液采集系统获得的血小板的质量验证。
背景:治疗血液肿瘤或创伤患者需要输注血小板。近年来,利用血小板分离设备进行的血小板分离(PPH)迅速增加。白细胞减少血小板分离(LRPH)可以降低输血时血小板难治性和发热性非溶血性输血反应(FNHTRs)的风险。因此,本研究旨在研究和比较使用Haemonetics进行的PPH和使用Trima Accel细胞分离器进行的LRPH在血小板代谢和功能方面的反应。方法通过PPH和LRPH采集的血小板在5 d的保存期间,从视觉外观、形态、血小板聚集变化、代谢活性和细菌筛选试验等方面评价血小板的质量。统计分析采用双样本t检验和广义估计方程(GEE)法。结果在LRPH中保存5 d,剩余白细胞均<1.0×106,血小板功能参数如下:血小板聚集为5′-二磷酸腺苷(ADP)和胶原等激动剂,形状改变程度和pO2在PPH和LRPH之间无统计学差异。LRPH组第0、1、3天的低渗休克反应(HSR)明显高于PPH组(71.78±6.92∶64.10±7.42;p = 0.002;71.53±8.98 vs. 62.96±9.84;p = 0.007;68.05±7.28 vs. 57.76±6.80;分别为p < 0.0001)。在第0、1、3天,PPH组的平均血小板体积(MPV)值均大于LRPH组。第5天,LRPH组的漩涡评分高于PPH组。平均乳酸水平在PPH和LRPH之间无统计学差异。另外,对40个样品进行了细菌筛选试验,未观察到生长。结论通过比较Trima Accel和Haemonetics自动血液采集系统收集的LRPH和PPH产品,发现尽管需要额外的过程来减少白细胞,但这两种产品都具有良好的血小板质量。此外,有必要调查其他采血工具的结果,重点关注供体、产品和受体的安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Artificial intelligence in medical information retrieval: a word of caution. Trends in new hepatitis C virus infections among repeat blood donors - Georgia, 2017-2023. Comparative Evaluation of Hematological Parameters and Instrument Performance in Single and Double Plateletpheresis Procedures Using Haemonetics MCS+ and Trima Accel Systems. Effect of platelet storage duration on platelet increment and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients - a randomised controlled trial. Developing a veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation program during the COVID-19 pandemic: don't forget to notify the blood bank.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1