The effects of autoflow management on flow-rate alerts, collection efficiency, and collection rate during plateletpheresis.
Autoflow management
Collection efficiency
Collection rate
Plateletpheresis
Journal
Transfusion and apheresis science : official journal of the World Apheresis Association : official journal of the European Society for Haemapheresis
ISSN: 1473-0502
Titre abrégé: Transfus Apher Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101095653
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
02
07
2020
revised:
05
08
2020
accepted:
06
08
2020
pubmed:
5
9
2020
medline:
6
8
2021
entrez:
5
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In 2018, Trima Accel software version 6.4 with autoflow management released in China. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the effects of autoflow management on plateletpheresis procedures, specifically concerning flow-rate alerts, collection efficiency (CE), and collection rate (CR). A total of 2526 procedures using Trima Accel version 6.4 from Nov 2018 to Jan 2019 were included as the test arm in this study. Another 2043 procedures using version 5.1.9 from Nov 2017 to Jan 2018 were included as the control arm. We compared the low-flow alerts and no-flow alerts, collection efficiency (CE), and collections rate (CR) between the two study arms. Also, we analyzed the incidence of autoflow increases and autoflow decreases of version 6.4. The incidence of low-flow alerts for test and control was 16.6 % and 55.3 %(χ Autoflow management shows significant advantages in reducing alerts and subsequent manual intervention. We observe a higher CR and CE using Trima Accel version 6.4 than version 5.1.9, which leads to a more efficient platelet collection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In 2018, Trima Accel software version 6.4 with autoflow management released in China. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the effects of autoflow management on plateletpheresis procedures, specifically concerning flow-rate alerts, collection efficiency (CE), and collection rate (CR).
METHODS
METHODS
A total of 2526 procedures using Trima Accel version 6.4 from Nov 2018 to Jan 2019 were included as the test arm in this study. Another 2043 procedures using version 5.1.9 from Nov 2017 to Jan 2018 were included as the control arm. We compared the low-flow alerts and no-flow alerts, collection efficiency (CE), and collections rate (CR) between the two study arms. Also, we analyzed the incidence of autoflow increases and autoflow decreases of version 6.4.
RESULT
RESULTS
The incidence of low-flow alerts for test and control was 16.6 % and 55.3 %(χ
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Autoflow management shows significant advantages in reducing alerts and subsequent manual intervention. We observe a higher CR and CE using Trima Accel version 6.4 than version 5.1.9, which leads to a more efficient platelet collection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32883592
pii: S1473-0502(20)30228-7
doi: 10.1016/j.transci.2020.102914
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
102914Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.