Platelet capacity of various platelet pooling systems for buffy coat-derived platelet concentrates.

BACKGROUND: Platelet (PLT) storage lesions might depend on the total PLT count in the storage container and also on the PLT pooling system, especially the storage container, that is used for preparation of PLT concentrates (PCs). In this study, the PLT capacity of four commercially available PLT pooling systems was studied. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four PCs were prepared in pooling systems of Baxter, Fresenius, Terumo, or Pall. The PCs were pooled and divided with various total PLT counts over the four storage containers (<225 x 10(9), 225 x 10(9)-324 x 10(9), 325 x 10(9)-424 x 10(9), and >424 x 10(9) PLTs). Volumes were kept equal by adding plasma to PCs with less than 425 x 10(9) PLTs until a same volume as for PCs with more than 424 x 10(9) PLTs was reached. PCs were stored at room temperature and tested for various in vitro variables on Days 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9. Paired experiments were repeated for each system five times. RESULTS: In vitro variables remained good for 9 days, that is, swirling score of 2 or more, pH value of 6.8 or more, glucose level of 10 mmol per L or more, lactate level of less than 25 mmol per L, and CD62p expression of less than 50 percent, for PCs in Baxter systems with more than 225 x 10(9) PLTs, for PCs in Fresenius and Terumo systems with 225 x 10(9) to 424 x 10(9) PLTs, and for PCs in Pall systems with fewer than 425 x 10(9) PLTs. CONCLUSION: PLT capacity depended on the PLT pooling systems used. All systems provide acceptable storage conditions. The Baxter system was the only system with capacity for more than 424 x 10(9) PLTs per PC.

Overnight or fresh buffy coat-derived platelet concentrates prepared with various platelet pooling systems.

BACKGROUND: For logistic reasons, possibilities to produce both platelet (PLT) concentrates prepared from fresh or overnight-stored whole blood (fresh and o/n PCs, respectively) are convenient. The consequences of both possibilities are not well described. The PLT pooling system used might also influence the condition of PCs. Our aim was to compare fresh and o/n PCs with different PLT pooling systems. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Fresh and o/n PCs were prepared from buffy coats and plasma in PLT pooling systems of Baxter, Fresenius, Terumo, or Pall (n = 5). PCs were stored for 9 days. The in vitro quality was determined by the PLT count, pH, glucose, lactate, pO(2), pCO(2), CD62P expression, and annexin V binding. RESULTS: The o/n PCs showed higher PLT count (approx. 460 x 10(9)/PC vs. approx. 310 x 10(9)/PC), pCO(2), and lactate concentration and lower pH, pO(2), glucose concentration, CD62P expression (until Day 5), and annexin V binding (until Day 7) compared with fresh PCs (p < 0.05). Only for o/n PCs in the Baxter and Fresenius systems did the pH and glucose concentration remain higher, and the lactate concentration and CD62P expression remained lower than that of o/n PCs in the Pall and Terumo systems. The pH for fresh PCs in the Baxter and Fresenius systems was more often greater than 7.4 than for fresh PCs in the Terumo or Pall systems. CONCLUSION: The quality of PCs depended on whether PCs were prepared from fresh or overnight-stored whole blood and on the used PLT pooling system. The main difference between fresh and o/n PCs was the PLT count.

Platelet counting in platelet concentrates with various automated hematology analyzers.

BACKGROUND: Hematology analyzers use impedance, optical, and/or immunologic techniques for counting platelets (PLTs). PLT counting in whole blood has been validated thoroughly; however, this is not the case for PLT counting in PLT concentrates (PCs), in which red cells (RBCs) are absent. Therefore, this study is focused on PLT counting in PCs to study use of ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA), carryover, and accuracy of the analyzers. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In total six hematology analyzers (AcT 8, Beckman Coulter; ADVIA 2,120, Bayer; Cell-Dyn 4,000, Abbott; Onyx, Beckman Coulter; K4,500, Sysmex; and XT 2,000i, Sysmex) were tested for PLT counting. PC samples with various PLT concentrations were made (0-1,700 x 10(9)/L) and measured 10 times. Carryover was determined five times. RESULTS: PC samples (1,000 x 10(9) PLTs/L) in EDTA tubes showed significantly higher PLT counts than samples in "dry" tubes for all analyzers except for the Cell-Dyn 4,000 with the impedance technique. Carryover was not more than 0.3 percent for all analyzers. The K4,500 showed the most accurate results, whereas the Cell-Dyn 4,000 with the impedance technique had low accuracy due to an overestimation of more than 20 percent. CONCLUSION: Most tested analyzers seemed to be suitable for counting PLTs in PCs. All hematology analyzers should be validated for counting PLTs in absence of RBCs as is the case in PCs, in addition to validation of PLT counting in whole blood.