MCS Plus与Trima Accel红细胞采集系统的比较

目的:通过比较MCS Plus与Trima Accel两种自动成分采集系统在红细胞采集方面的特点,寻求一种输注安全性更高,并能满足血液供应的方法。方法:采用MCS Plus与Trima Accel两种自动成分采集系统对40例男性献血者的红细胞采集进行比较分析;采集前后,均检测PLT、RBC和WBC计数,以及Hb和HCT情况,采集前直接穿刺,采集后收集5 ml检测,血样经过消毒,离心后装入样本袋,35 d末监测;比较二者在献血者安全性、效率、时间和样本体外质量方面的差异。结果:在献血时间、带针时间和处理时间、NaCl输注、样本单位容积、单位CPDA(红细胞保存液)添加量、过滤后红细胞回收百分比、收集35 d末溶血发生率、收集样本中葡萄糖含量上,MCS Plus系统高于Trima Accel系统(P<0.01);在ACD-A输注、枸橼酸盐输注率、样本收集率、样本中乳酸盐含量上,MCS Plus系统低于Trima Accel系统(P<0.01)。结论:Trima Accel系统比MCS Plus系统更为快捷,但MCS Plus系统可能对枸橼酸盐敏感的献血者而言更为有利且功能更为全面。

Comparison of Two Methods of Erythrocyte Apheresis Collections by MCS Plus and Trima Accel Systems

Objective: To select a safer and more efficient way for collecting red blood cells (RBCs) by comparing the safety and efficiency of two different automated component collection systems. Methods: Forty blood donors were randomly assigned to two different RBC collection groups with either the Haemonetics MCS Plus, or the Gambro Trima Accel. Procedures were prospectively evaluated focusing on donor safety, efficiency, citrate donor load, and in vitro quality. Results: The parameters by MCS Plus, such as donation time, needle-in time, administration time, volume of NaCl infused, volume per unit, volume of CPDA addition per unit, rate of hemolysis in 35 days, RBC recovery after filtration (%) and glucose concentration, were significant higher than those by Trima Accel (P<0. 01); and the parameters from MCS Plus, such as ACD-A infusion rate, citrate infusion rate, collection rate and citrate concentration, were significant lower than those from Trima Accel (P<0. 01), RBC collection by MCS Plus was slower than that by Trima Accel but had lower citrate load. Conclusion: The Trima Accel system were faster than the MCSplus system in automated RBC collection, but the later is safer and more eligible for donors sensitive to citrate.