A Prospective Comparative Study of High-Yield Plateletpheresis Using Haemonetics MCS+, Trima Accel, and Spectra Optia Devices in a Resource-Constrained Setting

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q4 HEMATOLOGY
Eiman Hussein, Azza A. Aboul Enein
{"title":"A Prospective Comparative Study of High-Yield Plateletpheresis Using Haemonetics MCS+, Trima Accel, and Spectra Optia Devices in a Resource-Constrained Setting","authors":"Eiman Hussein,&nbsp;Azza A. Aboul Enein","doi":"10.1002/jca.70054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>In a resource-constrained setting, maximizing plateletpheresis efficiency is critical. We believe leveraging advanced apheresis device software to enhance platelet yield, reduce consumables, and shorten procedure times offers significant advantages. This study compared Haemonetics, Trima, and Optia apheresis devices, analyzing donor and machine parameters. It also assessed how high-yield collections and recent software updates on Trima and Haemonetics devices impact donor safety. The goal was to find the best practices for optimizing both donor safety and platelet collection. Analyzing 900 procedures (300 per device), Trima and Optia yielded significantly more platelets (9 × 10<sup>11</sup>) in less time compared to Haemonetics (5.7 × 10<sup>11</sup>) (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). Trima collected10–12 × 10<sup>11</sup> platelets from significantly more donors with lower pre-donation counts than Optia (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). Optia led to the fewest adverse events (0.7%). Donor weight was significantly higher for yields &gt; 9 × 10<sup>11</sup> on Optia and Trima (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). Haemonetics' 3.6–3.8 × 10<sup>11</sup> yield group had significantly lower session time, donor weight, and presession platelet counts (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). Software updates (200 sessions/device) significantly boosted Trima's yields to 14.8 × 10<sup>11</sup> while reducing adverse events (1% vs. 2.3% pre-update). Haemonetics also saw improved yields and fewer adverse events (1% vs. 4.3%), though its overall yield remained lower (6.3 × 10<sup>11</sup>, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). Both maintained safe post-procedure platelet counts (&gt; 130 000/μL). However, Trima's predicted yields for very high collections (&gt; 12 × 10<sup>11</sup>) significantly differed from lab-determined yields. Trima and Optia provide better platelet collection efficiency than Haemonetics. Software updates improved both Trima and Haemonetics' performance and safety; however, Trima's high-yield predictions need refining. Optimal settings, updated software, and careful donor selection are essential for maximizing platelet yield and donor safety in resource-limited areas.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15390,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Apheresis","volume":"40 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Apheresis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jca.70054","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a resource-constrained setting, maximizing plateletpheresis efficiency is critical. We believe leveraging advanced apheresis device software to enhance platelet yield, reduce consumables, and shorten procedure times offers significant advantages. This study compared Haemonetics, Trima, and Optia apheresis devices, analyzing donor and machine parameters. It also assessed how high-yield collections and recent software updates on Trima and Haemonetics devices impact donor safety. The goal was to find the best practices for optimizing both donor safety and platelet collection. Analyzing 900 procedures (300 per device), Trima and Optia yielded significantly more platelets (9 × 1011) in less time compared to Haemonetics (5.7 × 1011) (p < 0.05). Trima collected10–12 × 1011 platelets from significantly more donors with lower pre-donation counts than Optia (p < 0.05). Optia led to the fewest adverse events (0.7%). Donor weight was significantly higher for yields > 9 × 1011 on Optia and Trima (p < 0.05). Haemonetics' 3.6–3.8 × 1011 yield group had significantly lower session time, donor weight, and presession platelet counts (p < 0.05). Software updates (200 sessions/device) significantly boosted Trima's yields to 14.8 × 1011 while reducing adverse events (1% vs. 2.3% pre-update). Haemonetics also saw improved yields and fewer adverse events (1% vs. 4.3%), though its overall yield remained lower (6.3 × 1011, p < 0.05). Both maintained safe post-procedure platelet counts (> 130 000/μL). However, Trima's predicted yields for very high collections (> 12 × 1011) significantly differed from lab-determined yields. Trima and Optia provide better platelet collection efficiency than Haemonetics. Software updates improved both Trima and Haemonetics' performance and safety; however, Trima's high-yield predictions need refining. Optimal settings, updated software, and careful donor selection are essential for maximizing platelet yield and donor safety in resource-limited areas.

资源受限条件下使用Haemonetics MCS+、Trima Accel和Spectra Optia设备进行高产血小板采集的前瞻性比较研究
在资源受限的环境下,最大限度地提高采血小板效率至关重要。我们相信利用先进的采血设备软件来提高血小板产量,减少耗材,缩短操作时间具有显著的优势。本研究比较了Haemonetics、Trima和Optia单采装置,分析了供体和机器参数。它还评估了Trima和Haemonetics设备的高产收集和最近的软件更新如何影响供体安全。目的是找到优化供体安全性和血小板收集的最佳做法。分析了900个程序(每个设备300个),Trima和Optia与Haemonetics (5.7 × 1011)相比,在更短的时间内产生了更多的血小板(9 × 1011) (p < 0.05)。与Optia相比,Trima从捐献前计数较低的献血者处收集了10 - 12 × 1011个血小板(p < 0.05)。Optia导致的不良事件最少(0.7%)。在Optia和Trima上产率>; 9 × 1011时,供体重量显著增加(p < 0.05)。Haemonetics的3.6 ~ 3.8 × 1011产量组的疗程时间、供体体重和血小板计数均显著低于对照组(p < 0.05)。软件更新(200次/设备)显著提高了Trima的产量至14.8 × 1011,同时减少了不良事件(1%,而更新前为2.3%)。Haemonetics的产量也有所提高,不良事件减少(1%对4.3%),但总产量仍然较低(6.3 × 1011, p < 0.05)。两例患者术后血小板计数均保持安全(13万/μL)。然而,对于非常高的收集(> 12 × 1011), Trima的预测产量与实验室测定的产量显著不同。Trima和Optia比Haemonetics提供更好的血小板收集效率。软件更新提高了Trima和Haemonetics的性能和安全性;然而,Trima的高产量预测需要进一步完善。在资源有限的地区,优化设置、更新软件和谨慎选择供体对于最大限度地提高血小板产量和供体安全至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
13.30%
发文量
70
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Apheresis publishes articles dealing with all aspects of hemapheresis. Articles welcomed for review include those reporting basic research and clinical applications of therapeutic plasma exchange, therapeutic cytapheresis, therapeutic absorption, blood component collection and transfusion, donor recruitment and safety, administration of hemapheresis centers, and innovative applications of hemapheresis technology. Experimental studies, clinical trials, case reports, and concise reviews will be welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信