Background and Objectives: New technological developments make it possible to collect red blood cells (RBCs) by apheresis, which allows for better product consistency and has the potential for improved RBC quality. The purpose of these studies was to evaluate the quality and consistency of units of RBCs collected by apheresis using the MCS+® machine (Haemonetics Corp., Braintree, Mass., USA). Materials and Methods: Two studies were performed. In study 1 (n = 10), using containers and CP2D/AS-3 solutions from Medsep Corp. (Covina, Calif. USA), one-unit apheresis RBCs were compared to manually collected RBCs in a random crossover design. In study 2 (n = 12), 6 subjects had one unit collected, while the remaining 6 subjects had two units of RBCs collected with comparison to previously manually collected RBCs from the same donors. Haemonetics containers and solutions were used in study 2. Results: Low RBC volume variability was found for the apheresis collections with a standard deviation of only 6 ml difference between actual and target volumes. Combining the data from the two studies (n = 21 pairs), at 42 days of storage, the apheresis units showed slightly lower hemolysis (0.44±0.26 vs. 0.61±0.50%), lower supernatant potassium levels (50±3 vs. 53±3 mEq/l), and improved tolerance to osmotic shock (47±3 vs. 49±3%) as compared to manual units (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in RBC ATP (3.0±0.6 vs. 2.9±0.5 μmol/g Hb) or in 24-hour percent recoveries (81±6 for apheresis vs. 81±4% for apheresis red cells). Apheresis RBC quality was not affected by the manufacturer (Haemonetics vs. Medsep) of solutions and containers. Conclusions: RBC units collected by apheresis demonstrated low variability in volume of RBC mass collected, and showed similar RBC properties as compared to manually collected RBCs after processing and after 42 days of storage.

1.
Meyer D, Bolgiano DC, Sayers M, Price T, Benson D, Schlicter S: Red cell collection by pheresis technology. Transfusion 1993;33:819–824.
2.
Axelrod FB, Catton P, Beeler SA: A comparison of post-donation reaction in 2-unit automated red cell apheresis collection using the Haemonetics MCS+ with 1 unit manual whole blood collection in autologous donors. Transfusion 1995;35:65S.
3.
Smith JW, Axelrod FB, Ness PM, Glicher R: Improved red cell products: Collection by apheresis. Transfusion 1995;35:66S.
4.
Sweeney JD, Holme S, Heaton W: Role of contaminating white blood cells in the storage lesions of red cells and platelets; in Sweeney J, Heaton A (eds): Clinical Benefits of Leukodepleted Blood Products. Austin, Landes, 1995.
5.
Heaton WAL: Evaluation of post-transfusion recovery and survival of transfused red cells. Transfus Med Rev 1992;6:153–169.
6.
Heaton WAL: Enhancement of cellular elements; in Wallas CH, McCarthy LJ (eds): New Frontiers in Blood Banking. Arlington, AABB, 1986, pp 89–125.
7.
Gibson JG, Murphy WP, Scheitlin WA, et al: The influence of extracellular factors involved in the collection of blood in ACD on maintenance of red cell viability during refrigerated storage. Am J Clin Pathol 1956;26:855–873.
8.
Heaton A, Miripol J, Aster R, et al: Use of Adsol® preservation solution for prolonged storage of low viscosity AS-1 red blood cells. Br J Haematol 1984;57:467–478.
9.
Heaton WAL, Keegan T, Holme S, et al: Evaluation of 99mTechnetium/51Chromium post-transfusion recovery of red cells stored in saline, adenine, glucose, mannitol for 42 days. Vox Sang 57;1989;37–42.
10.
Heaton WAL, Hanbury CM, Keegan TE, et al: Studies with nonradioisotopic sodium chromate. I. Development of a technique for measuring red cell volume. Transfusion 1989;29:696–702.
11.
Smith KJ, James DS, Hunt WC, McDonough W, Quintana R: Donor tolerance of red cell donation: A randomized, double-blind comparison of 400 ml, 200 ml, and sham donation. Transfusion 1996;36:674–680.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.