Sara Shaikh, Muhammad Usman, Maeesa Wadood and Aisha Shaikh
Objective: This objective of the study was to compare the three commonly used apheresis instruments available for Plateletpheresis, i.e., MCS Plus, COM.TEC and Amicus in terms of their Pre and Post donor CBC variables, instrument efficacy and product variables. Methodology: Donors undergoing Plateletpheresis are categorized into three groups. Sixty donors were selected according to the selection criteria of donor for Plateletpheresis by AABB. Later the procedure was performed on MCS Plus, Amicus and COM.TEC. Twenty donors were processed with each instrument. Results: The study revealed that there is no significant difference in pre and post count of donors on CBC in all the instruments. It is observed that the blood volume processed in order to have the standard platelet yield of ≥3. 3 × 1011 is higher in the COM.TEC as compared to Amicus and MCS plus (p<0.001). The mean separation time for MCS plus is greater than COM.TEC and Amicus (p<0.001). 95% of the platelet products collected with Amicus and MCS plus, have a platelet count of >3.3 × 1011. But in COM.TEC, 100% of the products have a platelet count of >3.3 × 1011. Products collected from Amicus and COM.TEC is leucodepleted. On the contrary, the products by MCS Plus are not leucodepleted. The collection efficiency is significantly low in MCS Plus (47 ± 13.6) when compares to Amicus (64 ± 7.9) and COM.TEC (59 ± 10.5). However, the collection rate is significantly higher with Amicus (0.07 ± 0.007) followed by COM.TEC (0.06 ± 0.006) and MCS plus (0.04 ± 0.004). Conclusion: The study concludes that all kits for Plateletpheresis are very efficient for platelet collection. However, both Amicus and COM. TEC is better than MCS Plus, as they give leucodepleted platelet concentrates. Amicus supersedes all as the target platelet yield is achieved more rapidly as compared to COM.TEC and MCS plus.
PDFShare this article
Journal of Blood & Lymph received 443 citations as per Google Scholar report
