Biomedical subjects

Rocío González

Publications and source records attributed to Rocío González.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Hematomas in multicomponent apheresis: searching for related factors.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to identify donation variables that could be related to the development of hematoma during multicomponent apheresis collections (MACs). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This is an observational retrospective study where 1375 donors donated 5177 MACs during a 2-year period with two different machines (Amicus Crescendo [AC], Baxter Healthcare Corp.; and Trima Accel [TA], Gambro BCT). Variable data were recorded prospectively. In the multiple logistic regression analysis, generalized estimating equations were used with an exchangeable correlation matrix to take into account the nonindependence of several measurements from the same donor. RESULTS: During the study period, 170 procedures failed due to hematoma (3.3%). Several variables were related to hematoma development in the adjusted model: operator experience (less than 500 procedures supervised vs. more; odds ratio [OR], 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-2.31), previous apheresis donations (first time vs. more than 16 donations; OR, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.52-5.45), vein canalized (basilic vs. intermediate antebrachial or cephalic; OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.04-1.94), diastolic blood pressure (units divided by 10 mmHg; OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66-0.94), and type of machine used (TA high return limit configuration [RLC] setting configuration vs. AC; OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.27-2.96; TA low RLC setting configuration vs. AC; OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.83-1.84). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that hematoma in MAC is not a random event. Appropriate machine configuration in the TA could reduce the hematoma rate to a level comparable with that of the AC. Operator training and donor blood pressure are also interesting variables for study because these could be modified to reduce the hematoma rate.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2005

A randomized crossover trial comparing three plateletpheresis machines.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare three different apheresis machines with the same donors regarding the processing time required to obtain a 3.5 x 10(11) platelet (PLT) dose and acceptance by donors. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized crossover trial was performed to evaluate the differences between the Amicus Crescendo (Baxter Biotech Corp.), the MCS Plus (Haemonetics Corp.), and the Trima Accel (Gambro BCT). Donations from 51 donors were compared for time adjusted to obtain a standard 3.5 x 10(11) PLT dose (TSD3.5), efficiency, adverse reactions, yield, leukodepletion, machine accuracy, and donor preferences. Processing times were measured by chronometer. The same vein access was used during all three processes in each donor. In the statistical analysis, to take into account the nonindependence of several measurements from the same donor, generalized estimating equations were used with an autoregressive correlation matrix. RESULTS: The Accel produced a TSD3.5 (mean +/- SEM) of 47.9 +/- 1.0 min; the Amicus, 60.3 +/- 1.0 min; and the MCS Plus, 66.7 +/- 1.0 (p < 0.0001). The Amicus presented the greatest efficiency (87.5%; p < 0.0028). The MCS Plus demonstrated the highest capacity for leukodepletion (p < 0.0002) despite one process presenting more than 1 x 10(6) white blood cells per unit. The MCS Plus also measured the processing time with the greatest accuracy. No severe adverse effects were observed. The donors preferred the Accel (61%) followed by the Amicus (35%) and the MCS Plus (4%; p < 0.0001) and the processing speed was the most highly valued measure (55%). CONCLUSIONS: The Accel is the fastest and, because of this advantage, the machine preferred by donors. The Amicus was the most efficient and the MCS Plus was the only one not to underestimate the processing time.

Cross-Over Studies↗