Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/11499/19508
Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Altuntas, F | - |
dc.contributor.author | Sarı, Hakan İsmail | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kocyigit, I | - |
dc.contributor.author | Kaynar, L | - |
dc.contributor.author | Hacıoğlu, Sibel | - |
dc.contributor.author | Ozturk, A | - |
dc.contributor.author | Oztekin, M | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-08-19T13:27:47Z | |
dc.date.available | 2019-08-19T13:27:47Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2008 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1660-3796 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/11499/19508 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://doi.org/10.1159/000151351 | - |
dc.description.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 pre-apheresis PLT count was higher with the COM.TEC than with the Amicus (198 x 10(3)/mu l vs. 223 x 10(3)/mu l; p = 0.035). The blood volume processed to reach a target PLT yield of = >= 3.3 x 10(11) 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 x 10(11) (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 x 10(11) vs. 0.057 +/- 0.008 x 10(11) 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. | en_US |
dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
dc.publisher | KARGER | en_US |
dc.relation.ispartof | TRANSFUSION MEDICINE AND HEMOTHERAPY | en_US |
dc.rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess | en_US |
dc.subject | Plateletpheresis; Apheresis; Amicus; COM.TEC; Cell separator | en_US |
dc.title | Comparison of plateletpheresis on the Fenwal Amicus and Fresenius Com.Tec cell separators | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.identifier.volume | 35 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issue | 5 | en_US |
dc.identifier.startpage | 368 | |
dc.identifier.startpage | 368 | en_US |
dc.identifier.endpage | 373 | en_US |
dc.authorid | 0000-0003-0757-9206 | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1159/000151351 | - |
dc.relation.publicationcategory | Makale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 21512626 | en_US |
dc.identifier.wos | WOS:000260234400006 | en_US |
dc.identifier.scopusquality | Q4 | - |
dc.owner | Pamukkale University | - |
item.openairetype | Article | - |
item.languageiso639-1 | en | - |
item.openairecristype | http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf | - |
item.fulltext | With Fulltext | - |
item.grantfulltext | open | - |
item.cerifentitytype | Publications | - |
crisitem.author.dept | 14.02. Internal Medicine | - |
crisitem.author.dept | 14.02. Internal Medicine | - |
Appears in Collections: | PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / PubMed Indexed Publications Collection Tıp Fakültesi Koleksiyonu WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu / WoS Indexed Publications Collection |
Files in This Item:
File | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|
tmh0035-0368.pdf | 86.18 kB | Adobe PDF | View/Open |
CORE Recommender
SCOPUSTM
Citations
12
checked on Nov 23, 2024
WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations
10
checked on Nov 22, 2024
Page view(s)
64
checked on Aug 24, 2024
Download(s)
44
checked on Aug 24, 2024
Google ScholarTM
Check
Altmetric
Items in GCRIS Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.