San-Mari van Delft-van Deventer, Marco C Stehouwer, Wim van Oeveren
{"title":"Comparison of two different autotransfusion devices: An ex-vivo study.","authors":"San-Mari van Delft-van Deventer, Marco C Stehouwer, Wim van Oeveren","doi":"10.1177/02676591251340938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>IntroductionDuring surgery, blood is recovered from the surgical field and the autotransfusion device separates and washes the red blood cells (RBC's) after which these can be retransfused to the patient. Autotransfusion devices differ strongly in separation method and washing settings, which may lead to different RBC recovery rates and removal rates of contaminants. The objective of this study was to compare the autoLog IQ<sup>TM</sup> (Medtronic) and the Xtra<sup>®</sup> (LivaNova) in terms of RBC recovery, quality of the processed blood and processing time.MethodsHuman blood was heparinised and processed with both autotransfusion devices according to their standard protocols. Blood samples were taken from the collection reservoir and from the transfusion bag and analyzed for cell count, heparin removal and cell injury.ResultsThe RBC recovery rates for both devices was 93%. Heparin was almost completely removed in both devices with >99.9%. The autoLog IQ<sup>TM</sup> showed significantly better removal of platelets (autoLog IQ vs Xtra; 86.1 ± 2.7 and 78.6 ± 4.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.01) and of leukocytes (autoLog IQ vs Xtra; 39.6 ± 2.7 and 13.4 ± 5.7%, <i>p</i> < 0.001). No other significant differences were observed in removal rates. The volume of RBC concentrated per minute was faster for the Xtra<sup>®</sup> (autoLog IQ vs Xtra, 21 ± 3 and 27 ± 2 mL RBC/min, <i>p</i> = 0.007).ConclusionsIn this study both the autoLog IQ<sup>TM</sup> and the Xtra<sup>®</sup> showed similar RBC recovery rates of 93% and almost all heparin was eliminated. The washing quality of the autoLog IQ<sup>TM</sup> device appears to be better, with better removal of platelets and leukocytes. Although both the autoLog IQ<sup>TM</sup> and the Xtra<sup>®</sup> devices use very different separation techniques and washing protocols, the difference in processing speed and various markers for cell damage in the end product seems trivial.</p>","PeriodicalId":49707,"journal":{"name":"Perfusion-Uk","volume":" ","pages":"2676591251340938"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perfusion-Uk","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02676591251340938","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
IntroductionDuring surgery, blood is recovered from the surgical field and the autotransfusion device separates and washes the red blood cells (RBC's) after which these can be retransfused to the patient. Autotransfusion devices differ strongly in separation method and washing settings, which may lead to different RBC recovery rates and removal rates of contaminants. The objective of this study was to compare the autoLog IQTM (Medtronic) and the Xtra® (LivaNova) in terms of RBC recovery, quality of the processed blood and processing time.MethodsHuman blood was heparinised and processed with both autotransfusion devices according to their standard protocols. Blood samples were taken from the collection reservoir and from the transfusion bag and analyzed for cell count, heparin removal and cell injury.ResultsThe RBC recovery rates for both devices was 93%. Heparin was almost completely removed in both devices with >99.9%. The autoLog IQTM showed significantly better removal of platelets (autoLog IQ vs Xtra; 86.1 ± 2.7 and 78.6 ± 4.4%, p = 0.01) and of leukocytes (autoLog IQ vs Xtra; 39.6 ± 2.7 and 13.4 ± 5.7%, p < 0.001). No other significant differences were observed in removal rates. The volume of RBC concentrated per minute was faster for the Xtra® (autoLog IQ vs Xtra, 21 ± 3 and 27 ± 2 mL RBC/min, p = 0.007).ConclusionsIn this study both the autoLog IQTM and the Xtra® showed similar RBC recovery rates of 93% and almost all heparin was eliminated. The washing quality of the autoLog IQTM device appears to be better, with better removal of platelets and leukocytes. Although both the autoLog IQTM and the Xtra® devices use very different separation techniques and washing protocols, the difference in processing speed and various markers for cell damage in the end product seems trivial.
在手术过程中,血液从手术野中回收,自体输血装置分离并清洗红细胞(RBC),之后这些红细胞可以再输给患者。自体输血装置在分离方法和洗涤设置上差异很大,这可能导致不同的红细胞回收率和污染物去除率。本研究的目的是比较autoLog IQTM(美敦力)和Xtra®(LivaNova)在红细胞恢复、处理血液质量和处理时间方面的差异。方法采用两种自体输血装置对人血进行肝素化处理。从收集库和输血袋中采集血样,分析细胞计数、肝素去除和细胞损伤情况。结果两种设备的红细胞回收率均为93%。肝素在两种装置中几乎完全去除,>为99.9%。autoLog IQTM对血小板的去除效果明显更好(autoLog IQ vs extra;86.1±2.7和78.6±4.4%,p = 0.01),白细胞(autoLog IQ vs Xtra;39.6±2.7和13.4±5.7%,p < 0.001)。在去除率方面没有观察到其他显著差异。Xtra®每分钟浓缩的RBC体积更快(autoLog IQ vs Xtra, 21±3和27±2 mL RBC/min, p = 0.007)。结论在本研究中,autoLog IQTM和Xtra®红细胞回收率相似,均为93%,几乎所有肝素都被清除。autoLog IQTM设备的洗涤质量似乎更好,可以更好地去除血小板和白细胞。尽管autoLog IQTM和Xtra®设备都使用非常不同的分离技术和洗涤方案,但处理速度和最终产品中细胞损伤的各种标记的差异似乎微不足道。
期刊介绍:
Perfusion is an ISI-ranked, peer-reviewed scholarly journal, which provides current information on all aspects of perfusion, oxygenation and biocompatibility and their use in modern cardiac surgery. The journal is at the forefront of international research and development and presents an appropriately multidisciplinary approach to perfusion science.