No abstract

Background: A variety of apheresis devices are now available on the market for plateletapheresis. We compared two apheresis instruments (Fenwal Amicus and Fresenius COM.TEC) with regard to processing time, platelet (PLT) yield and efficiency, and white blood cell (WBC) content. Material and Methods: Donors undergoing plateletpheresis were randomly separated into two groups (either the Amicus or the COM.TEC cell separator). Results: In the pre-apheresis setting, 32 plateletpheresis procedures performed with each instrument revealed no significant differences in donors’ sex, age, weight, height and total blood volume between the two groups. However, the preapheresis PLT count was higher with the COM.TEC than with the Amicus (198 ×10³/µl vs. 223 ×10³/µl; p = 0.035). The blood volume processed to reach a target PLT yield of ≧3.3 ×10¹¹ was higher in the COM.TEC compared to the Amicus (3,481 vs. 2,850 ml; p < 0.001). The median separation time was also significantly longer in the COM.TEC than in the Amicus (61 vs. 44 min; p < 0.001). 91 and 88% of the PLT products collected with the Amicus and the COM.TEC, respectively, had a PLT count of ≧3.3 ×10¹¹ (p = 0.325). All products obtained with both instruments had WBC counts lower than 5 ↔10⁶, as required. There was no statistical difference with regard to collection efficiency between the devices (55 ± 15 vs. 57 ± 15%; p = 0.477). However, the collection rate was significantly higher with the Amicus compared to the COM.TEC instrument (0.077 ± 0.012 ×10¹¹ vs. 0.057 ± 0.008 ×10¹¹ PLT/min; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Both instruments collected platelets efficiently. Additionally, consistent leukoreduction was obtained with both instruments; however, compared with the COM.TEC instrument, the Amicus reached the PLT target yield more quickly.

No abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to report the efficacy of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) apheresisusing a cascade filtration system in pediatric patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), and toclarify the associated adverse effects and difficulties.Material and Methods: LDL-C apheresis using a cascade filtration system was performed in 3 pediatric patientswith homozygous FH; in total, 120 apheresis sessions were performed.Results: Cascade filtration therapy significantly reduced the mean LDL-C values from 418 ± 62 mg/dL to 145 ± 43 mg/dL (p= 0.011). We observed an acute mean reduction in the plasma level of total cholesterol (57.9%), LDL-C (70.8%),and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (40.7%). Treatments were well tolerated. The most frequent clinicaladverse effects were hypotension in 3 sessions (2.5%), chills (1.7%) in 2 sessions, and nausea/vomiting in 3 sessions(2.5%).Conclusion: Our experience using the cascade filtration system with 3 patients included good clinical outcomes andlaboratory findings, safe usage, and minor adverse effects and technical problems.Conflict of interest:None declared.

No abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to report the efficacy of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) apheresis using a cascade filtration system in pediatric patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), and to clarify the associated adverse effects and difficulties.Material and Methods: LDL-C apheresis using a cascade filtration system was performed in 3 pediatric patients with homozygous FH; in total, 120 apheresis sessions were performed.Results: Cascade filtration therapy significantly reduced the mean LDL-C values from 418 ± 62 mg/dL to 145 ± 43 mg/ dL (p= 0.011). We observed an acute mean reduction in the plasma level of total cholesterol (57.9%), LDL-C (70.8%), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (40.7%). Treatments were well tolerated. The most frequent clinical adverse effects were hypotension in 3 sessions (2.5%), chills (1.7%) in 2 sessions, and nausea/vomiting in 3 sessions (2.5%).Conclusion: Our experience using the cascade filtration system with 3 patients included good clinical outcomes and laboratory findings, safe usage, and minor adverse effects and technical problems.

No abstract

No abstract