These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A randomized crossover trial comparing three plateletpheresis machines.
    Author: Bueno JL, García F, Castro E, Barea L, González R.
    Journal: Transfusion; 2005 Aug; 45(8):1373-81. PubMed ID: 16078928.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare three different apheresis machines with the same donors regarding the processing time required to obtain a 3.5 x 10(11) platelet (PLT) dose and acceptance by donors. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized crossover trial was performed to evaluate the differences between the Amicus Crescendo (Baxter Biotech Corp.), the MCS Plus (Haemonetics Corp.), and the Trima Accel (Gambro BCT). Donations from 51 donors were compared for time adjusted to obtain a standard 3.5 x 10(11) PLT dose (TSD3.5), efficiency, adverse reactions, yield, leukodepletion, machine accuracy, and donor preferences. Processing times were measured by chronometer. The same vein access was used during all three processes in each donor. In the statistical analysis, to take into account the nonindependence of several measurements from the same donor, generalized estimating equations were used with an autoregressive correlation matrix. RESULTS: The Accel produced a TSD3.5 (mean +/- SEM) of 47.9 +/- 1.0 min; the Amicus, 60.3 +/- 1.0 min; and the MCS Plus, 66.7 +/- 1.0 (p < 0.0001). The Amicus presented the greatest efficiency (87.5%; p < 0.0028). The MCS Plus demonstrated the highest capacity for leukodepletion (p < 0.0002) despite one process presenting more than 1 x 10(6) white blood cells per unit. The MCS Plus also measured the processing time with the greatest accuracy. No severe adverse effects were observed. The donors preferred the Accel (61%) followed by the Amicus (35%) and the MCS Plus (4%; p < 0.0001) and the processing speed was the most highly valued measure (55%). CONCLUSIONS: The Accel is the fastest and, because of this advantage, the machine preferred by donors. The Amicus was the most efficient and the MCS Plus was the only one not to underestimate the processing time.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]