Platelet Recruitment during Multiple Donor Platelet Apheresis Differs between Cell Separators

SUMMARY: BACKGROUND: Recruitment of platelets (PLT) during donor PLT apheresis may facilitate the harvest of multiple units within a single donation. METHODS: We compared two PLT apheresis procedures (Amicus and Trima Accel) in a prospective, randomized, paired cross-over study in 60 donors. The 120 donations were compared for depletion of circulating PLT in the donors, PLT yields and PLT recruitment. A recruitment was defined as ratio of total PLT yield and donor PLT depletion > 1. RESULTS: Despite comparable differences of pre- and post-apheresis PLT counts (87 × 10(9)/l in Trima Accel vs. 92 × 10(9)/l in Amicus, p = 0.383), PLT yields were higher with Trima Accel (7.48 × 10(11) vs. 6.06 × 10(11), p < 0.001), corresponding to a higher PLT recruitment (1.90 vs. 1.42, p < 0.001). We observed a different increase of WBC counts after aphereses, which was more pronounced with Trima Accel than with Amicus (1.30 × 10(9)/l vs. 0.46 × 10(9)/l, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Both procedures induced PLT recruitment. This was higher in Trima Accel, contributing to a higher yield in spite of a comparable depletion of circulating PLT in the donors. This recruitment facilitates the harvest of multiple units within a single donation and seems to be influenced by the procedure utilized. The different increases of circulating donor white blood cells after donation need further investigation.

Prospective, paired crossover comparison of multiple, single-needle plateletpheresis procedures with the Amicus and Trima Accel cell separators

BACKGROUND: The Baxter Amicus Version 2.51 (A) and the Gambro BCT Trima Accel Version 5.0 (T) cell separators may produce multiple platelet (PLT) concentrates within a single donation. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The single-needle multiple plateletpheresis procedures of the two devices were compared in a prospective, randomized, paired crossover study in 60 donors. The 120 donations were compared for donor comfort, collection efficiency, residual white blood cell (WBC) count, and (in selected patients) corrected count increment (CCI). RESULTS: The mean PLT yield and the resultant mean number of units per donation were significantly lower for A (6.06 x 10(11) vs. 7.48 x 10(11) and 2.57 vs. 3.19, respectively, both p < 0.001), in spite of a longer apheresis duration (89 min vs. 79 min; p < 0.001). This resulted in a higher collection rate of T (5.68 x 10(11) PLTs/hr vs. 4.10 x 10(11) PLTs/hr, p < 0.001). Residual WBC count of every unit was fewer than 5 x 10(6), but significantly fewer A-PLT donations contained more than 10(5) WBCs per unit (1 vs. 9, p = 0.008). Although the ACD-A consumption was slightly higher for A (489 mL vs. 469 mL, p = 0.04), a trend to a higher frequency of side effects was found for T (42.4% vs. 23.7%, p = 0.06). The 1-hour CCIs of 33 transfused A-PLT units were comparable with those of 43 T-PLT units (11.8 vs. 13.9, p = 0.480). CONCLUSIONS: Both cell separators showed safe collections of up to 4 PLT units per donation with adequate CCI. T produced a higher PLT yield despite shorter apheresis duration, but with slightly higher residual WBC counts and a trend to a higher side-effect frequency.

Effects of high-yield thrombocytapheresis on the quality of platelet products

BACKGROUND: The steadily increasing demands for single-donor apheresis platelet (PLT) concentrates (APCs) are a challenge to the PLT supply system. Therefore, efforts to improve plateletpheresis yield, allowing apheresis products to be split into 2 or more units, are valuable strategies. No data to demonstrate in vivo transfusion efficacy of these high-yield split-APCs are currently available, however. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The transfusion efficacy of APCs produced by two apheresis methods involving different harvest and storing procedures and varying PLT yields was investigated. Efficacy measures were the 1-hour percent PLT recovery (PPR(1h)) and the 1-hour corrected count increment (CCI(1h)). In total, 400 APCs, produced with either an Amicus device (Baxter) and stored in PLT additive solution (T-Sol; Amicus method [AM], n = 107) or a Trima device (Gambro) and stored in plasma (Trima method [TM], n = 293), were transfused to 55 children (31 girls; median age, 9.5 years; range, 0.2-18.5 years) with thrombocytopenia due to chemotherapy or aplastic anemia (median, 4 APCs per child; range, 1-68). RESULTS: Transfusion efficacy was significantly lower for AM-APCs than for TM-APCs (median PPR(1h), 17 and 33%; median CCI(1h), 7.9 and 15.6, respectively; p < 0.001). Reduced transfusion efficacy correlated in a yield-dependent manner with high apheresis PLT yields (>/=6 x 10(11)) for AM-APCs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although in vitro validation of AM- and TM-APCs has been performed, only by evaluating transfusion efficacy in vivo did the AM turn out to be not suitable for high-yield thrombocytapheresis. This study recommends the implementation of in vivo transfusion efficacy studies for high-yield APC apheresis donations.

Blood donor screening: how to decrease the risk of transfusion-transmitted hepatitis B virus?

QUESTIONS UNDER STUDY: The risk of transfusion-transmitted HBV remains significant in Switzerland, where routine screening for hepatitis B virus (HBV) in blood donations relies solely on serological hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) testing. This study was designed to determine the prevalence of anti-hepatitis B core (anti-HBc) and HBV nucleic acid testing (NAT) positive donations in two different Swiss donor populations, to help in deciding whether supplemental testing may bring additional safety to blood products. METHODS: In a first population of donors, 18143 consecutive donations were screened initially for HBsAg, anti-HBc (with one EIA assay) and with HBV NAT in minipools of 24 donations. The screening repeatedly reactive anti-HBc donations were then "confirmed" with two supplemental anti-HBc assays, an anti-hepatitis B surface assay (anti-HBs) and with single donation HBV NAT. In a second population of donors, 4186 consecutive donations were screened initially with two different anti-HBc assays in addition to the mandatory HBsAg screening test. The screening repeatedly reactive donations with at least one anti-HBc assay were tested for anti-HBs. RESULTS: In the first subset of 18143 donations, 17593 (97.0%) were negative for HBsAg, anti-HBc and HBV NAT in minipools. 549 (3.0%) were HBsAg and HBV NAT negative, but repeatedly reactive for anti-HBc. Of these 549 donations, 287 could not be "confirmed" with two additional anti-HBc assays and were negative with an anti-HBs assay, as well as with single donation HBV NAT. Only 211 (1.2% of the total screened donations) were "confirmed" positive with at least one of two supplemental anti-HBc assays. One repeatedly reactive HBsAg donation, from a first-time donor, was confirmed positive for HBsAg and anti-HBc, as well as with single donation HBV NAT. In the second subset of 4186 donations, 4014 (95.9%) were screened negative for HBsAg and for anti-HBc, tested with two independent anti-HBc assays. 172 donations (4.1%) were HBsAg negative but repeatedly reactive with at least one of the two anti-HBc assays. Of these 172 samples, 86 were reactive with the first anti-HBc assay only, 13 were reactive with the second anti-HBc assay only and 73 (1.7% of the total screened donations) were "confirmed" positive with both anti-HBc assays. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of anti-HBc "confirmed" positive donations in the two Swiss blood donor populations studied was low (<2%) and we found only one HBV NAT positive (HBsAg positive) donation among more than 18000. Concerning blood product safety, an increase in the deferral rate of less than 2% of anti-HBc positive, potentially infectious donors, would in our opinion make routine anti-HBc testing of blood donations cost-effective. There is however still a need for more specific assays to avoid an unacceptably high deferral rate of "false" positive donors. In contrast, the introduction of HBV NAT in minipools gives minimal benefit due to the inadequate sensitivity of the assay. It remains to evaluate more extensively the value of individual donation NAT, alone or in addition to anti-HBc, as supplemental testing in the context of several Swiss blood donor populations.

Gamma-hydroxybutyrate enhances mood and prosocial behavior without affecting plasma oxytocin and testosterone.

Gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) is a GHB-/GABAB-receptor agonist. Reports from GHB abusers indicate euphoric, prosocial, and empathogenic effects of the drug. We measured the effects of GHB on mood, prosocial behavior, social and non-social cognition and assessed potential underlying neuroendocrine mechanisms. GHB (20mg/kg) was tested in 16 healthy males, using a randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over design. Subjective effects on mood were assessed by visual-analogue-scales and the GHB-Specific-Questionnaire. Prosocial behavior was examined by the Charity Donation Task, the Social Value Orientation test, and the Reciprocity Task. Reaction time, memory, empathy, and theory-of-mind were also tested. Blood plasma levels of GHB, oxytocin, testosterone, progesterone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), cortisol, aldosterone, and adrenocorticotropic-hormone (ACTH) were determined. GHB showed stimulating and sedating effects, and elicited euphoria, disinhibition, and enhanced vitality. In participants with low prosociality, the drug increased donations and prosocial money distributions. In contrast, social cognitive abilities such as emotion recognition, empathy, and theory-of-mind, and basal cognitive functions were not affected. GHB increased plasma progesterone, while oxytocin and testosterone, cortisol, aldosterone, DHEA, and ACTH levels remained unaffected. GHB has mood-enhancing and prosocial effects without affecting social hormones such as oxytocin and testosterone. These data suggest a potential involvement of GHB-/GABAB-receptors and progesterone in mood and prosocial behavior.

A novel, bedside technique to rapidly identify umbilical cord blood units with high total nucleated cell numbers

BACKGROUND With increasing demand for umbilical cord blood units (CBUs) with total nucleated cell (TNC) counts of more than 150 × 10(7) , preshipping assessment is mandatory. Umbilical cord blood processing requires aseptic techniques and laboratories with specific air quality and cleanliness. Our aim was to establish a fast and efficient method for determining TNC counts at the obstetric ward without exposing the CBU to the environment. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS Data from a total of 151 cord blood donations at a single procurement site were included in this prospective study. We measured TNC counts in cord blood aliquots taken from the umbilical cord (TNCCord ), from placenta (TNCPlac ), and from a tubing segment of the sterile collection system (TNCTS ). TNC counts were compared to reference TNC counts in the CBU which were ascertained at the cord blood bank (TNCCBU ). RESULTS TNCTS counts (173 ± 33 × 10(7) cells; calculated for 1 unit) correlated fully with the TNCCBU reference counts (166 ± 33 × 10(7) cells, Pearson's r = 0.97, p < 0.0001). In contrast, TNCCord and TNCPlac counts were more disparate from the reference (r = 0.92 and r = 0.87, respectively). CONCLUSIONS A novel method of measuring TNC counts in tubing segments from the sterile cord blood collection system allows rapid and correct identification of CBUs with high cell numbers at the obstetric ward without exposing cells to the environment. This approach may contribute to cost efficacy as only CBUs with satisfactory TNC counts need to be shipped to the cord blood bank.