Prospective comparison of plateletapheresis using four apheresis systems on the same donors

To address the demand for higher plateletapheresis efficiency while maintaining consistent leukoreduction, manufacturers of apheresis systems have introduced new equipment or modifications to existing equipment. Using the same 20 donors, we compared the Fresenius AS104 (AS104), Fenwal Amicus, and COBE Spectra Version 7 Leukoreduction System (Turbo) to the COBE Spectra Version 5 Leukoreduction System (V5-LRS) and each other in regard to platelet (plt) collection efficiencies, processing times, and leukoreduction consistency. Using current pre-procedure platelet counts, target endpoints were set at 6-6.5 x 10(11) plt or 3.3-4.0 x 10(11) plt in up to 100 minutes processing time. Median platelet yields for V5-LRS, AS104, Amicus, and Turbo were 3.98, 3.63, 5.03, and 4.99 x 10(11) plt respectively; median collection efficiencies were 53, 46, 73, and 56% respectively; median collection rates were.049,.039,.065, and. 060 x 10(11) plt/minute respectively; double product frequencies were 35, 10, 40, and 30% respectively; and median processing times were 87, 92, 77, and 79 minutes, respectively. Amicus had a significantly higher collection efficiency and higher incidence of double products than all other systems. While AS104 had a significantly lower collection efficiency and lowest double product frequency than all other systems, Amicus and Turbo had significantly lower processing times than V5-LRS and AS104. AS104 leukoreduction was inconsistent, but V5-LRS, Amicus, and Turbo were consistently leukoreduced ((99.8% had <5 x 10(6) WBC at 95% confidence interval). The best overall performance was for the Amicus with Turbo a close second.