A Comparison of the Software LDP Rev. C vs Rev. C2 in MCSR+ / 대한수혈학회지

BACKGROUND: It is necessary to protect patient from white blood cells (WBC) caused side effects of platelet transfusion by reducing the WBC contamination in single donor platelets (SDPs). Objective of the new software is to improve WBC depletion performance and collection efficiency. Revised software version, LDP Rev. C2 was installed in our MCSR+ (Hemonetics, USA). We compared the newly introduced software version with the previous software LDP Rev. C. METHOD: SDPs were collected from registered and random repeat donors who visited our blood center. After 49 single needle collections by MCSR+ (software LDP Rev. C) were performed, revised software (LDP Rev. C2) was installed and 48 single needle collections were carried out. The platelet count of donors were measured electronically. The target platelet yields were 3.0x10(11). All units of SDPs were tested for platelet yields and residual WBC. And other parameters were also evaluated. RESULTS: The MCSR+ LDP collected platelets with mean platelet yields of 3.3x10(11)(Rev. C) and 3.4x10(11)(Rev. C2). The total processing blood volume and collection time were significantly reduced in Rev. C2. The collection efficiency was also significantly improved in Rev. C2 (64% vs 57%). Residual WBC in all product collected from software Rev. C2 were below 1 106 and 71% of the products revealed residual WBC below 1 105, respectively. Citrate toxicity was not observed during the apheresis by Rev. C2. CONCLUSION: Revised software LDP Rev. C2 in MCSR+ showed improved collection efficiency and leukocyte depletion performance compared to the Rev. C. And optional control of citrate re-infusion rate seemed to reduce donor citrate reactions during the apheresis.

Performance evaluation of AmicusTM and MCS + during plateletpheresis / 대한수혈학회지

BACKGROUND: Recently introduced plateletpheresis systems (AmicusTM software version 2.41 and MCS + LDP Rev. C) were evaluated for their performance. METHOD: Single-needle procedure was used for all donors, 127 with the AmicusTM and 85 with the MCS +. The targeted platelet yield was 3.2x1011. Components were evaluated for component yields, collection time, collection efficiency and incidence of donor reactions due to citrate. RESULTS: The collection time was significantly shorter with the AmicusTM (mean 57 min vs. 71 min, p< 0.05), and in 9 donors with a mean preapheresis platelet count of 325x103 /microliter the whole procedure could be completed within 40 minutes. However, the total processing time, including preprocessing and postprocessing time, between AmicusTM (78.0 min) and MCS + (74.3 min) was not statistically different. Mean platelet yield for AmicusTM and MCS + were 3.6x1011 and 3.4x1011, respectively. With 82.4% of SDPs collected with the MCS + having a platelet count of 3.0~3.9x1011, compared to 65.4% with the AmicusTM, the MCS + was more accurate in predicting the platelet yield of the final products. All components showed a residual WBC count of 5.0x106, and in 99.2% and 97.6% of components collected with the AmicusTM and MCS +, respectively, had a residual WBC count of less than 1.0x106. Mild donor reactions due to citrate tended to be more common on the MCS + (14.1%), which also used significantly more ACD (mean 342.5 mL vs. 268.0 mL, p< 0.05), than on the AmicusTM (5.5%). CONCLUSION: The plateletpheresis systems evaluated in this study allow the collection of leukoreduced SDPs of high quality within a reasonable time.