Evaluation of concurrent collection of in-line filtered platelets and packed red blood cells by multicomponent apheresis with three last-generation apparatuses


: Susanne M. Picker, Transfusion Medicine, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany E-mail: susanne.picker@uk-koeln.de


Background and Objectives  Multicomponent apheresis enables the collection and procession of different blood products in a single donation. Different apparatuses vary in terms of principle and efficiency. Knowledge of them is essential to analyse cost effectiveness.

Materials and Methods  A total of 30 donors, well matched for baseline parameters, were randomly assigned to the concurrent collection of red blood cells (RBCs) and platelets (PLTs) with the Baxter Amicus (AM), the Haemonetics MCS plus (MCS+), and the Gambro Trima Accel (TA). The procedures were prospectively evaluated, focusing on yield, time, efficiency, citrate donor load and in vitro quality.

Results  PLT yield (× 1011/unit; mean ± standard deviation) was 3·09 ± 0·34 (AM), 2·53 ± 0·35 (MCS+), 2·51 ± 0·32 (TA). Absolute RBC mass (ml/unit; mean ± standard deviation) was 177·4 ± 2·7 (AM), 161·5 ± 0·7 (MCS+), and 163·7 ± 5·4 (TA). The programmed RBC collection target of 160–180 ml was reached by all instruments, whereas the programmed PLT yield of 3·0 × 1011 was met satisfactorily by AM only. All units contained < 1 × 106 WBCs. In vitro RBC quality was equivalent among the systems. No significant differences were noted with collection efficiency, processed whole blood or citrate donor load. Owing to high collection and draw rates, the TA was the fastest of all the systems. The MCS+ had the longest donation/needle time and the highest PLT activation, but compensated with significantly lower draw and citrate infusion rates. The overall processing time was longest with the AM, as a result of manual procedures from donor disconnection to the final products.

Conclusions  Multicomponent apheresis was performed safely and efficiently with all three instruments. There was no ‘magic apparatus’ as each system combined advantages and pitfalls for the diverse parameters evaluated.