Platelet activation during plasma‐reduced multicomponent PLT collection: a comparison between COBE Trima and Spectra LRS turbo cell separators

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The wide diffusion of multicomponent collection in donor apheresis has led to the yielding of different components, such as plasma‐reduced platelet‐pheresis at high PLT concentration. We investigated whether this collection modality could induce more PLT activation compared to standard plateletpheresis. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Forty‐one plateletpheresis collections (20 Trima and 21 Spectra LRS Turbo v.7.0, COBE) were evaluated. Donor, procedure, and product data were recorded. ADP, collagen, and U46619 (a thromboxane‐A2 analog)‐induced PLT aggregation was investigated in basal (donor) and final (plateletpheresis unit) samples. The expression of PLT activation marker P‐selectin (CD62P) was studied using flow cytometry in basal and final samples. In all cases, P‐selectin was investigated in final samples after stimulation with ADP to assess for a possible further release of the antigen. Four additional plateletpheresis procedures were performed in donors from Group A, using the traditional, nonplasma‐reduced program. RESULTS: Plateletpheresis obtained by means of the Trima device showed a lower response to in‐vitro induced PLT aggregation and a higher percentage of P‐selectin‐expressing PLT when compared to products obtained using the Spectra device. Moreover, P‐selectin release after ADP stimulation was reduced in plateletpheresis units obtained using the Trima device. These differences disappeared when a nonplasma‐reduced collection program was used. In‐vivo evaluation did not detect any difference between platelepheresis obtained by means of the two cell separators. CONCLUSIONS: Plateletpheresis units obtained by means of multicomponent collection show a higher degree of PLT activation compared to traditional plateletpheresis procedures when high‐concentration plasma‐reduced products are collected. Randomized clinical studies are needed to assess the real impact of these findings in terms of in‐vivo efficacy of plasma‐reduced plateletpheresis units.

The quality of platelet concentrates produced by COBE Spectra and Trima Accel cell separators during storage for 7 days as assessed by in vitro methods

“…We could not detect any difference between PLTs collected with Spectra and Trima cell separators regarding spontaneous activation as measured by P‐selectin expression. Differences in PLT P‐selectin expression comparing various cell separators have been reported by others 4,27,28 . Previous studies have reported on a negative correlation between P‐selectin expression and in vivo viability, 2,15,29 but in a more recent study by Slichter and colleagues 25 this correlation was not found.…”

“…Various AP devices are available for PLT collection and they vary regarding the number of PLTs collected per volume‐processed blood, collection time, and number of contaminating white blood cells (WBCs). It has previously been demonstrated that various cell separators induce different degree of PLT activation depending on their collection principle 2‐4 …”

Apheresis donors and platelet function: inherent platelet responsiveness influences platelet quality

“…Previous studies have demonstrated that the process of apheresis causes varying degrees of activation in harvested PLTs, with variability in the degree of activation reported between different types of apheresis machines 8,9 . These studies also highlighted the fact that apheresis‐induced PLT activation varies considerably between donors, suggesting that some donors have PLTs that are more susceptible to process‐induced activation than others.…”

“…Process‐induced PLT activation may occur irrespective of the production method, but PLTs produced with PRP‐based methods appear to exhibit higher levels of activation markers such as P‐selectin, bound fibrinogen, and anionic phospholipids exposure than those derived from buffy coat and apheresis procedures 7 . Comparison of different cell separators has also shown that the level of induced PLT activation varies between different types of machines, with longer processing times and higher PLT concentrations being associated with increased activation 8,9 …”

Mononuclear cell collection in patients undergoing extra‐corporeal photo‐chemotherapy for acute and chronic graft‐vs.‐host‐disease (GvHD): Comparison between COBE Spectra version 4.7 and 6.0 (AutoPBSC)

“…A recently published study on ECP in acute GVHD reported a drop in post-ECP platelet count that required platelet transfusion in 7 out of 21 patients [17], despite the reinfusion of collected and treated platelets. This ®nding could be due to a certain degree of platelet activation during the apheresis procedure [22], which might induce an increased platelet removal from PB.…”