4.2 Article

In vitro measures of membrane changes reveal differences between red blood cells stored in saline- adenineglucose- mannitol and AS-1 additive solutions: a paired study

Journal

TRANSFUSION
Volume 54, Issue 3, Pages 560-568

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/trf.12344

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Australian Red Cross Blood Service
  2. NIH [1R01 HL095470-01A1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundSaline-adenine-glucose-mannitol (SAGM) and a variant solution, AS-1, have been used for more than 30 years to preserve red blood cells (RBCs). Reputedly these RBC components have similar quality, although no paired study has been reported. To determine whether differences exist, a paired study of SAGM RBCs and AS-1 RBCs was conducted to identify membrane changes, including microparticle (MP) quantitation and in vitro RBC-endothelial cell (EC) interaction. Study Design and MethodsTwo whole blood packs were pooled and split and RBCs were prepared (n=6 pairs). One pack was suspended in SAGM and one in AS-1. Samples were collected during 42 days of refrigerated storage. RBC shape and size and glycophorin A (GPA)(+) and phosphatidylserine (PS)(+) MPs were measured by flow cytometry. RBC adhesion to ECs was determined by an in vitro flow perfusion assay. Routine variables (pH, hemolysis) were also measured. ResultsCompared to SAGM RBCs, AS-1 RBCs had lower hemolysis (p<0.04), lower GPA(+) MPs (p<0.03), and lower PS+ MPs (p<0.03) from Day 14 onward. AS-1 RBCs had higher (p<0.02) side scatter from Day 28 onward compared to SAGM RBCs. SAGM RBCs were more adherent to ECs on Day 28 of storage compared to AS-1 RBCs (p=0.04), but reversed on Day 42 (p=0.02). ConclusionSAGM RBCs lose more membrane during storage. SAGM RBCs had increased adherence to ECs on Day 28 of storage, while AS-1 RBCs were more adherent on Day 42. The effect of these differences on the function and survival of SAGM RBCs and AS-1 RBCs after transfusion remains to be determined.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available