Comparative study of automated plateletpheresis using five different apheresis systems in a tertiary care hospital

Different types of cell separators are available nowadays based on either continuous or intermittent flow technology to meet the growing demands for single donor apheresis platelets. This prospective study compares the five machines used in our center with regard to procedure parameters, product quality and adverse effects on the donor.A total of 477 plateletpheresis on various machines were performed on eligible donors over a period of 28 months after taking informed consent. All procedures were performed following the departmental standard operating procedure (SOP) and manufacturer’s instructions. All donor and procedure related details were obtained from the procedure register. Statistical analysis was done using the SPSS statistical package (version 12, USA).The median age, BSA and BMI of our plateletpheresis donors were calculated to be 29 years, 1.69 m² and 23.1 kg/m², respectively. Analyzing the parameters related to donor comfort such as donation time (DT), needle time (NT) and processing time (PT), the MCS machines were not “donor friendly” compared to Amicus and Fresenius. Platelet yield by Amicus was significantly higher as compared to other cell separators (p < 0.05). Plateletpheresis associated citrate toxicity was higher with the Amicus and MCS 3p and vasovagal side-effects was observed least with the CS 3000 machine. Though, quality of apheresis product in terms of yield is comparable with all the machines, there are differences in the systems with regard to donor safety, procedure time and donor retention.