4.6 Article

Centrifugation-free washing: A novel approach for removing immunoglobulin A from stored red blood cells

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEMATOLOGY
卷 93, 期 4, 页码 518-526

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajh.25026

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [R01HL117329]
  2. NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE [R01HL117329] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Washed red blood cells (RBCs) are indicated for immunoglobulin A (IgA) deficient recipients. Centrifugation-based cell processors commonly used by hospital blood banks cannot consistently reduce IgA below the recommended levels, hence double washing is frequently required. Here, we describe a prototype of a simple, portable, disposable system capable of washing stored RBCs without centrifugation, while reducing IgA below 0.05 mg/dL in a single run. Samples from RBC units (n = 8, leukoreduced, 4-6 weeks storage duration) were diluted with normal saline to a hematocrit of 10%, and then washed using either the prototype washing system, or via conventional centrifugation. The efficiency of the two washing methods was quantified and compared by measuring several key in vitro quality metrics. The prototype of the washing system was able to process stored RBCs at a rate of 300 mL/hour, producing a suspension of washed RBCs with 436 3% hematocrit and 86 + 7% cell recovery. Overall, the two washing methods performed similarly for most measured parameters, lowering the concentration of free hemoglobin by >4-fold and total free protein by >10-fold. Importantly, the new washing system reduced the IgA level to 0.02 +/- 60.01 mg/mL, a concentration 5-fold lower than that produced by conventional centrifugation. This proof-of-concept study showed that centrifugation may be unnecessary for washing stored RBCs. A simple, disposable, centrifugation-free washing system could be particularly useful in smaller medical facilities and resource limited settings that may lack access to centrifugation-based cell processors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据