PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16078928

A randomized crossover trial comparing three plateletpheresis machines.

José Luis Bueno·Fernando García·Emma Castro·Luisa Barea·Rocío González
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

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.

Explore related subjects

Cross-Over StudiesHumansPlateletpheresisProspective StudiesClinical TrialComparative StudyJournal ArticleRandomized Controlled Trial

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

José Luis Bueno, Fernando García, Emma Castro, Luisa Barea, Rocío González. 2005. A randomized crossover trial comparing three plateletpheresis machines.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2005.00215.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Sildenafil affects olfactory function.

PURPOSE: Sildenafil is the first member of a new class of oral drugs effective for erectile dysfunction. However, approximately 20% of patients complain about nasal congestion after sildenafil administration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Because nasal airflow and olfaction are closely linked, the sense of smell was evaluated in 20 young, healthy volunteers after the administration of 50 and 100 mg sildenafil, and placebo in a double-blinded, crossover study. Olfactory function was evaluated using a standardized and validated test (Sniffin' Sticks). To investigate a possible impact of G-protein beta3 subunit C825T polymorphism on the effect of sildenafil on olfaction the genotype of all subjects was determined. RESULTS: The effect of sildenafil on olfaction was only present at a dose of 100 mg but not at a dose of 50 mg sildenafil. The genotypes TT, CC and TC of the G-protein beta3 C825T polymorphism had no impact on the change in olfactory function. CONCLUSIONS: Higher sildenafil doses may produce decreased olfactory sensitivity.

Cross-Over Studies↗
PubMed2006

[The N-of-1 trial: the ideal study design that is underused].

The randomised experiment in a single patient, the N-of-1 trial, is the best study design for demonstrating causality, for example between agent and effect. Despite this, this type of study is only encountered sporadically in medical journals. One reason for this is that even this type of design cannot definitively demonstrate causality, because different points in time are compared with one another. Moreover, the design is rather inefficient, since the results correspond with those from observation without randomisation, placebo control or blinding. Even so, the N-of-1 trial is the ultimate form of verification in, for example, the individualisation of treatment. For this reason, this form of study might be used more often.

Cross-Over Studies↗
PubMed2006

[Restless legs due to ingestion of 'light' beverages containing saccharine; results of an N-of-1 trial].

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there was a connection between the complaint of restless legs and the ingestion of artificial sweeteners in a patient with these symptoms after drinking certain 'light' beverages. DESIGN: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled N-of-1 trial with a cross-over design. METHOD: During a period of 48 days, the patient took 4 capsules per day containing either 150 mg of cyclamate, 22.5 mg of saccharine, both sweeteners, or placebo on two successive days. Between each of these 2-day periods there was a 2-day rest period during which no capsules were taken. The hospital pharmacist had prepared the capsules and determined the sequence of the 2-day periods on a random basis. The patient did not know which capsules he was taking. Every day on arising, starting 3 weeks before the trial period, the patient noted the intensity and duration of the symptoms in the late evening and previous night. For this notation he used an 11-point scale, from 0 (= no restless legs) to 10 (= almost total inability to sleep because of restless legs). RESULTS: A score of 1-3 corresponded to mild symptoms that had no effect on the patient's sleep; at a score of 4-6 his sleep was disturbed and at a score of 7-10 the patient hardly slept at all. The patient had symptoms more often while using saccharine or the combination of saccharine and cyclamate than when taking the placebo (4 and 4 versus 2 ofthe 6 nights); moreover, the average score was then statistically significantly higher (5.2 and 5.8 versus 3.3). CONCLUSION: There was a connection between the patient's complaints of restless legs and the use of saccharine, but not the use of cyclamate.

Cross-Over Studies↗