Why the study?
How do different plateletpheresis protocols compare in terms of platelet yield, leukocyte contamination, and side effects?
Observational (n=710)
How do different plateletpheresis protocols compare in terms of platelet yield, leukocyte contamination, and side effects?
Different plateletpheresis protocols offer a trade-off between higher platelet yield and lower leukocyte contamination, with varying rates of paresthesias.
Higher-yield single-stage protocols were associated with more leukocyte contamination; leaves open optimal device selection for clinical outcomes.
Six different protocols were employed in 710 plateletpheresis employing Haemonetics 30, Fenwal CS-3000, IBM 2997 dual stage channel, IBM 2997 single-stage channel, and Haemonetics V-50 "surge pump" method. When Haemonetics 30 and IBM 2997 single-stage channel procedures were used, 5.4 to 5.9 X 10(11) platelets were collected with significant leukocyte contamination (10.8 to 11.6 X 10(9)). With Fenwal CS-3000, dual-stage channel of IBM 2997 and Haemonetics V-50 "surge pump" there was less leukocyte contamination in concentrates (0.3 to 0.9 X 10(9)) as well as a lower platelet yield (3.4 to 4.3 X 10(11)). No difference in yield was observed when plateletpheresis was performed with ACD-A or ACD-B employing the single-stage channel of IBM 2997. Paresthesias was the most frequently seen side effect in donors, with a higher incidence when using ACD-A and IBM 2997.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Puig et al. (1986) conducted an observational in Plateletpheresis (n=710). Haemonetics 30 and IBM 2997 single-stage channel vs. Fenwal CS-3000, IBM 2997 dual-stage, and Haemonetics V-50 was evaluated on Platelet yield and leukocyte contamination.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: