
doi: 10.1002/jca.21838
pmid: 32894894
AbstractBackgroundSingle donor apheresis platelets are superior in quality, but their usage is limited in a developing country due to cost and time constraints. Hence the product obtained must exceed in terms of yield, donor safety and technical convenience. Previous literature available on cell separators is on older versions.AimsProspective comparison of 5 latest cell separators (AmiCORE, COM.TEC, Haemonetics MCS+, SpectraOptia and TrimaAccel) for product yield, performance variables and donor adverse effects.Material & MethodsFrom October 2019 ‐ March 2020, 1108 donors were randomly allotted to a cell separator. Post‐donation sample was taken from the donor 15‐20 minutes after procedure completion. The platelet yield from the product collected was measured twice (day 0 and day 1). Donor demography, pre‐and post‐procedural donor peripheral blood values, performance and product variables were statistically analyzed.ResultsAmiCORE had an optimal collection efficacy (44.6%) and collection rate (0.037 x 1011/minute). Haemonetics MCS+ had a better collection efficacy (48.4%) and rate (0.038 x 1011/minute). Spectra Optia achieved least procedural time (59.5 minutes), donor adverse effects (6.3%); highest collection efficacy (52.8%) and rate (0.056 x 1011/minute). Trima Accel achieved highest collection rate (0.056 x 1011/minute) and the least product volume (228 ml).ConclusionHighest collection efficacy was achieved by Trima Accel, highest collection rate by Trima Accel and Spectra Optia, lowest donor adverse effects by Spectra Optia and least number of procedural troubleshooting by COM.TEC. Apart from this, fiscal factors and service availability also need to be considered before choosing a cell separator.
Adult, Male, Tertiary Care Centers, Young Adult, Plateletpheresis, Humans, Blood Donors, Female, Prospective Studies
Adult, Male, Tertiary Care Centers, Young Adult, Plateletpheresis, Humans, Blood Donors, Female, Prospective Studies
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 7 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
