title: Frequently used plateletpheresis techniques result in variable target yields and platelet recruitment of donors.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Standard plateletpheresis techniques and effects on platelet (PLT) donors were investigated to provide an informative basis for advancement of apheresis software.
  
  
  METHODS
  Three paired groups with 33 male and 22 female blood donors were prospectively investigated by analyzing blood counts of donors and products. Four apheresis platforms, the COBE Spectra LRS and the Trima v4 (Gambro BCT) and the AS.TEC204 and the COM.TEC (Fresenius Hemocare), were compared. Deviations of the collected from programmed PLT targets and donor PLT recruitment were calculated for single-unit PLT concentrates (SU-PCs; 3 x 10(11) PLTs) and double-unit PLT concentrates (DU-PCs; 6 x 10(11) PLTs).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Regarding SU-PCs, the productivity of the COM.TEC machine was superior to the AS.TEC204 machine, because of shorter processing time (54 min vs. 67 min) and higher yields (2.90 x 10(11) PLTs vs. 2.75 x 10(11) PLTs). Compared to the Spectra machine, the Trima v4 machine showed higher collection efficiencies (CEs) and shorter processing time and complied better with the programmed target (SU-PCs, 3.24 x 10(11) PLTs vs. 3.70 x 10(11) PLTs; DU-PCs, 6.87 x 10(11) PLTs vs. 7.56 x 10(11) PLTs). Harvests of the Spectra machine (DU-PCs) exceeded the target by 40 percent, which resulted in high PLT loss for donors. A longer processing time resulted in some higher CEs (SU-PCs, 53%; DU-PCs, 58%), which could contribute to this result. PLT recruitment compensated PLT loss to some extent.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The major finding was that the newer devices (COM.TEC and Trima) gave more predictable yields than the older devices (AS.TEC204 and Spectra) and resulted in lower PLT deficit. PLT software should be improved to minimize relevant variations of collected yields regarding the programmed target.
authors.affiliation: Department of Transfusion Medicine and Haemostaseology, University Hospital Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany. erwin.strasser@trans.imed.uni-erlangen.de
authors.forename: Erwin F
authors.initials: EF
authors.lastname: Strasser
authors.forename: Marco
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Schuster
authors.forename: Kerstin
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Egler
authors.forename: Jörg
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Bauer
authors.forename: Volker
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Weisbach
authors.forename: Jürgen
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Ringwald
authors.forename: Robert
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Zimmermann
authors.forename: Jürgen
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Zingsem
authors.forename: Reinhold
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Eckstein
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001781:Blood Component Removal / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods; D001782:Blood Donors / Q000523:psychology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009339:Needles; D010976:Platelet Count; D010983:Plateletpheresis / Q000295:instrumentation* / Q000379:methods*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012737:Sex Factors; D012984:Software; D013997:Time Factors; D014838:Volunteers