Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online:270
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 30-33

Machine and man individualities in apheresis adverse events


Department of Transfusion Medicine, Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals, Calcutta, West Bengal, India

Date of Web Publication5-Apr-2018

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Sudipta Sekhar Das
Department of Transfusion Medicine, Apollo Gleneagles Hospitals, Calcutta, West Bengal
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/GJTM.GJTM_46_17

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: Adverse events due to plateletpheresis are not unheard of, citrate-related reactions being the most common. Most of these events are mild and self-limiting. The current study describes adverse events in plateletpheresis using modern apheresis systems. Materials and Methods: The prospective study included 1455 plateletpheresis procedures from July 2013 to April 2016. Procedures were performed on Amicus, Trima Accel and Cobe spectra cell separators. The endpoint of each procedure was a yield of 3 × 1011 platelets (PLTs) per unit. Donor adverse reaction if any was managed, reported, and documented. Results: The median age of donors was 31 years with male-to-female ratio of 13:1. The median body surface area and body mass index were 1.64 m2 and 22.4 kg/m2, respectively. The mean PLT count of donors was 199.8 × 103/uL with a mean hemoglobin value of 13.6 g/dl. ACD infusion was significantly more in the Cobe (P < 0.01). Donation time was least with the Trima compared to Amicus (P < 0.01) and Cobe (P < 0.001). Total whole blood volume processed was higher in Cobe (P < 0.01). Paresthesia due to citrate toxicity was the most common adverse reaction (65.3%), and vascular injury was observed in only five donors. Adverse reaction was significantly more with the Cobe (P < 0.01). The overall incidence of adverse reaction was 3.4%. Conclusion: Serious adverse events were not observed. The modern-generation apheresis machines are more donor-friendly and cause less adverse reactions compared to the older versions. Good donor screening, optimized donor physiognomic and hematological values, and skilled operator are the key factors to reaction reduction by apheresis.

Keywords: Adverse events, cell separator, citrate reaction, plateletpheresis, vascular injury


How to cite this article:
Das SS, Sen S, Chakrabarty R. Machine and man individualities in apheresis adverse events. Glob J Transfus Med 2018;3:30-3

How to cite this URL:
Das SS, Sen S, Chakrabarty R. Machine and man individualities in apheresis adverse events. Glob J Transfus Med [serial online] 2018 [cited 2018 Nov 20];3:30-3. Available from: http://www.gjtmonline.com/text.asp?2018/3/1/30/229332




  Introduction Top


Although plateletpheresis procedures are considered safe, adverse events related to these procedures have been discussed elaborately in the literature.[1],[2] Donors suffer a mild reaction rarely requiring any medical intervention. Apheresis procedures are commonly associated with citrate-related reactions and comprise 30%–40% of all reactions. These reactions are generally transient and self-limiting. Other adverse events include hematoma, pain or swelling at the phlebotomy site, peripheral neuropathy, blood loss, hypertension, and allergic reactions. Serious adverse events due to plateletpheresis such as severe vasovagal reactions, nonvasovagal hypotension, neuropathy, syncope, angina, or myocardial ischemia are rare and comprise only 0.16%–0.24% of all reactions.[2],[3],[4],[5],[6] The possible effects of apheresis on a donor or a patient can be classified as “physiological effects” and “adverse effects”. The easily reversible physiological effects such as mild paresthesias and lightheadedness due to citrate infusion are an expected phenomenon that has trivial deviations from baseline physiology. Adverse effects due to apheresis are those that are unusual and clinically troublesome occurrences. Frequency of apheresis donor reactions varies from study to study, and the authors have also observed that “almost all” their donors experienced some form of physiological or adverse effects during or after the donation.[2],[3],[7],[8]

The current study describes adverse events in plateletpheresis using modern apheresis systems.


  Materials and Methods Top


Donors and procedures

This was a prospective study that included 1455 plateletpheresis procedures performed on eligible donors from July 2013 to April 2016. All procedures were performed by the same apheresis team after taking informed consent. No prophylactic calcium supplementation was administered to any donors. A total of 561 procedures were performed on Amicus cell separator (version 3.21, Fenwal Healthcare Corporation, Deerfield, IL, USA), 679 on Trima Accel cell separator (version 5.1, Terumo BCT, Lakewood, USA), and 215 using the Cobe spectra cell separator (version 7.0 LRS turbo, Terumo BCT, Lakewood, USA). All these procedures were performed following the departmental standard operating procedure using closed-system apheresis kits and acid citrate dextrose (ACD) - A anticoagulant in the proportion of 1:10–1:12. The endpoint of each procedure was based on the target yield of 3 × 1011 platelets (PLTs) per unit. Procedure summary including donor and plateletpheresis details, patient details, donor reaction if any, reaction management, and quality of product obtained was recorded in the departmental procedure register.

Measurements

As a part of the screening process, predonation hematological values of all donors, such as PLTs, hemoglobin (Hb), hematocrit, and white blood cell count, were measured using a routinely calibrated automated cell counter (Beckman Coulter Inc, California, USA).

Reporting and documenting donor reactions

Procedure details were explained to the donors and all were directed to report any form of discomfort or uneasiness immediately to the apheresis team. Donors were also observed for any specific significant reactions.

Any donor reaction, physiologic or adverse, was reported accordingly, and details of each reaction including its management were documented and notified to medical officer in charge of apheresis section.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS statistical package (IBM, SPSS, Version 14, USA). All results were calculated as mean ± standard deviation, and “P” < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


  Results Top


The median age of plateletpheresis donors was 31 years with a male-to-female ratio of 13:1. The median body surface area and body mass index were calculated to be 1.64 m 2 and 22.4 kg/m 2, respectively. The mean preapheresis PLT count of the donor population was 199.8 × 103/uL with a mean Hb value of 13.6 g/dl [Table 1].
Table 1: Donor demography, hematological values & procedural factors in plateletpheresis (n=1455)

Click here to view


[Table 1] also describes the procedure-related factors in plateletpheresis. ACD infusion was significantly more in the Cobe (351 ml) compared to Amicus (269.7 ml) or Trima (290 ml; P < 0.01). Donation time was least with the Trima (63.3 min) and the value was significantly lower compared to Amicus (69.3 min; P < 0.01) and Cobe (77.3 min; P < 0.001). Total whole blood volume processed was higher in Cobe (3557.3 ml) compared to the other two machines (P< 0.01). [Table 2] depicts the adverse reaction during or after plateletpheresis. Where paresthesia due to citrate toxicity was the most common adverse reaction (32/49, 65.3%), vascular injury was observed in only five donors. Adverse reaction was significantly more with the Cobe (5.6%) compared to Amicus (3.6%) and Trima (2.5%; P < 0.01). In the present study, the overall incidence of adverse reaction in plateletpheresis was 3.4%.
Table 2: Adverse reactions in plateletpheresis (n=1455)

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Data with regard to donor adverse effects in plateletpheresis vary from center to center despite using the modern apheresis instruments. Donor demographic and physiological profiles probably play important roles in determining such adverse effects.[2],[8],[9] We observed that factors such as low normal PLT counts, average donor built, and average total blood volume necessitate high blood volume processing and high donor anticoagulant infusion to achieve the target yield of 3 × 1011 PLTs per unit. All these may contribute to donor adverse effects in plateletpheresis significantly. None of the 105 female donors had any adverse event despite being first-time donors and mean weight of 52 kg. This may be attributed to high PLT count (mean: 266 × 103/uL) demonstrated in our female donors, which reduced the donation time (57.9 min vs. 69.3 min, P < 0.001) and anticoagulant utilization (249 ml vs. 291 ml, P < 0.01) significantly.

Where a total of 4497 healthy donors were screened for eligible plateletpheresis, 1957 (43%) donors were selected. Most of the male donors were deferred due to low PLT count and poor venous access. The most common cause of female deferral was anemia. Female donors could withstand procedure well compared to male donors. ACD infusion was significantly more in the Cobe machine compared to Amicus or Trima (P< 0.01). Donation time was least with the Trima machine and the value was significantly lower compared to Amicus (P< 0.01) and Cobe (P< 0.001). Total whole blood volume processed was higher in the Cobe compared to the other two machines (P< 0.01). Similar observation was depicted by Tendulkar and Rajadhyaksha where total blood volume processed and donation time were higher in the Cobe compared to Amicus. While anticoagulant usage was higher with the Cobe in the current study, Tendulkar andRajadhyaksha observed a low anticoagulant use with the Cobe compared to Amicus.[10] In another study by Keklik et al., the Trima and Amicus were comparable with regard to all parameters, except PLT yield and collection efficiency which was better with the Trima compared to Amicus.[11]

The present study observed paresthesia or perioral tingling sensation due to hypocalcemia as the most common adverse reaction, and this was observed in 32 donors which constituted 65.3% of the total adverse reactions. Other reactions included nausea and flushing (14.3%), vasovagal episodes (12.2%), and vascular injury such as hematoma or arm pain (10.2%). None of the donors with citrate-related reactions needed intravenous therapy and were managed with oral elemental calcium in a dose of 1–1.5 g. Adverse reactions were observed more with Cobe, and this can be attributed to processing of significantly high whole blood volume and infusion of increased ACD with long donation time. To prevent future paresthesia and citrate toxicity due to hypocalcemia, we started prophylactic 1 g chewable oral elemental calcium before all plateletpheresis procedures since August 2016. Of the 197 PLT donations from August 2016 to November 2016, citrate toxicity in the form of perioral tingling was observed in 1 healthy donor. This definitely suggests the therapeutic benefit of prophylactic calcium supplement before plateletpheresis.

In context to Indian studies, Philip et al. observed 85 adverse reactions in 3120 plateletpheresis procedures with majority (52, 61%) complaining of vascular injury. Citrate reactions were observed in 30 donors.[9] In contrast, the current study witnessed more citrate-related reactions than vasovagal reactions or vascular injury. However, majority of vascular injury can be prevented by good vein selection and skilled phlebotomist. Donor inattentiveness, excessive arm movement, or high return rate in a case of thin vein may cause vascular injury. In a multicentric study by McLeod et al., 2.18% of plateletpheresis donors suffered acute adverse reaction; most of the reactions were associated with the Hemonetics cell separator.[3]

While volume of ACD-A usage varies with cell separators, the modern separators have been observed to utilize less anticoagulant compared to the older machines. Moreover, extracorporeal volume in modern machines is much lower than the older machine which controls the volume of blood returned to the donor, thereby enhancing adequate blood dilution throughout total extracellular fluid of the donor. Second, the body gets sufficient time to metabolize infused citrate and release the bound calcium.[6] Despite modernization and equipment optimization, citrate-related reactions are the most common adverse events in plateletpheresis. These are due to donor individuality and variable biological and physiological donor characteristics. Das et al. depicted that hypocalcemia-like symptoms may be caused by hypomagnesemia and the authors observed significant lowering of ionized magnesium after plateletpheresis. Such situation at times may be misdiagnosed and calcium supplementation becomes unfruitful.[12] Crocco et al. concluded that 0.3% of their whole blood and apheresis donors were complicated by adverse events; most of these reactions were mild and did not necessitate hospitalization. They reported citrate toxicity and vasovagal reactions in 189 (0.38%) and 124 (0.24%) apheresis donors, respectively.[13] In the contrary, Leanes et al. observed that 53% of the adverse reactions were vascular injury followed by vasovagal (23.7%), lipemia (10.3%), and citrate reactions (5%).[14] In the present study, most reactions were mild, except one low-weight (54 kg) male donor who needed help from the emergency team for prolonged vasovagal symptoms and nausea. Of 15,763 plateletpheresis procedures performed by Yuan et al. using the Trima Accel cell separator, 59 (0.37%) donors suffered adverse reactions, the most common reaction being presyncopal or syncopal episode (32.2%).[15] Winters in a review concluded that by large, the most common apheresis-specific reaction is hypocalcemia due to citrate anticoagulation which is usually mild but at times has potential for injuring the donor severely.[8]


  Conclusions Top


We concluded that modern-generation apheresis machines are more donor-friendly and cause less adverse reactions compared to the older versions. In addition, good donor screening, optimized donor physiognomic and hematological values, and skilled operator are the key factors to reaction reduction by apheresis.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Trouern-Trend JJ, Cable RG, Badon SJ, Newman BH, Popovsky MA. A case-controlled multicenter study of vasovagal reactions in blood donors: Influence of sex, age, donation status, weight, blood pressure, and pulse. Transfusion 1999;39:316-20.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Despotis GJ, Goodnough LT, Dynis M, Baorto D, Spitznagel E. Adverse events in platelet apheresis donors: A multivariate analysis in a hospital-based program. Vox Sang 1999;77:24-32.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
McLeod BC, Price TH, Owen H, Ciavarella D, Sniecinski I, Randels MJ, et al. Frequency of immediate adverse effects associated with apheresis donation. Transfusion 1998;38:938-43.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Strauss RG. Mechanisms of adverse effects during hemapheresis. J Clin Apher 1996;11:160-4.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Olson PR, Cox C, McCullough J. Laboratory and clinical effects of the infusion of ACD solution during plateletpheresis. Vox Sang 1977;33:79-87.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Bolan CD, Greer SE, Cecco SA, Oblitas JM, Rehak NN, Leitman SF, et al. Comprehensive analysis of citrate effects during plateletpheresis in normal donors. Transfusion 2001;41:1165-71.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Fung MK, Grossman BJ, Hillyer CD, Westhoff CM. Technical Manual. 18th ed. Bethesda, MD: AABB; 2014.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Winters JL. Complications of donor apheresis. J Clin Apher 2006;21:132-41.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Philip J, Sarkar RS, Pathak A. Adverse events associated with apheresis procedures: Incidence and relative frequency. Asian J Transfus Sci 2013;7:37-41.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
10.
Tendulkar A, Rajadhyaksha SB. Comparison of plateletpheresis on three continuous flow cell separators. Asian J Transfus Sci 2009;3:73-7.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
11.
Keklik M, Eser B, Kaynar L, Sivgin S, Keklik E, Solmaz M, et al. Comparison of plateletpheresis on the Fenwal Amicus, Fresenius COM.TEC, and trima accel cell separators. J Clin Apher 2015;30:171-5.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Das SS, Chaudhary R, Khetan D, Shukla JS, Agarwal P, Mishra RB, et al. Calcium and magnesium levels during automated plateletpheresis in normal donors. Transfus Med 2005;15:233-6.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Crocco I, Franchini M, Garozzo G, Gandini AR, Gandini G, Bonomo P, et al. Adverse reactions in blood and apheresis donors: Experience from two Italian transfusion centres. Blood Transfus 2009;7:35-8.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Leanes MF, Markovic A, Glauser A, Ries J, Frey BM. Adverse reactions in apheresis donors: A 10 years retrospective analysis at ZHBSD. Luzern, Switzerland: Swisstransfusion Jahreskongress; 2014.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Yuan S, Ziman A, Smeltzer B, Lu Q, Goldfinger D. Moderate and severe adverse events associated with apheresis donations: Incidences and risk factors. Transfusion 2010;50:478-86.  Back to cited text no. 15
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed377    
    Printed26    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded35    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]