Trima血细胞分离机采集系统5.1版与6.4版血小板采集效果比较  

Comparison of platelet collection effect between version 5.1 and 6.4 of Trima blood cell separator

作　　者：葛让 于晓燕 李爱萍[1] 李亚茹 周倩[1] Ge Rang;Yu Xiaoyan;Li Aiping;Li Yaru;Zhou Qian(Blood Donation Serving Section 2,Beijing Red Cross Blood Center,Beijing 100088,China)

机构地区：[1]北京市红十字血液中心献血服务二科,100088

出　　处：《北京医学》2021年第10期1000-1003,共4页Beijing Medical Journal

摘　　要：目的 Trima血细胞分离机系统软件5.1版与6.4版血小板采集效果比较分析。方法选取2018年9月1日至2019年3月1日北京市红十字血液中心使用Trima 5.1版系统采集的献血者1 634名为对照组,2019年9年1日至2020年3月1日使用Trima6.4版系统采集的2417名献血者为试验组,对比两组采血压力报警、手动调节次数及耗材报损率的差异。随机抽取观察期内使用5.1版和6.4版系统的献血者各100名,对比其采集时间、血小板产品合格率的差异。结果系统升级至6.4版后,血小板合格率与5.1版相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。单份采集时间虽有所缩短,但与5.1版相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);双份采集时间明显缩短[(57.88±7.28)min比(64.03±9.73)min],差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。6.4版机器压力报警次数(8.4%比34.5%)和人工手动调节1~5次、6~10次、11~20次比5.1版明显减少(21.4%比6.6%、4.2%比1.9%、8.9%比0.0%),差异均有统计学意义(P<0.01)。6.4版因系统故障和血管因素造成的耗材报损率比5.1版明显下降(0.73%比0.17%,P<0.05)。两组采集的血小版合格率比较,差异无统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论使用6.4版采集血小板,产品质量和5.1版无差别,均符合国家标准,但在性能方面6.4版优于5.1版,值得推广使用。Objective To compare and analyze the platelet collection effect of Trima blood cell separator version 5.1 and 6.4. Methods A total of 1 634 blood donors collected by the Beijing Red Cross Blood Center using the Trima 5.1 version system from September 1, 2018 to March 1, 2019, were selected as the control group. The 2 417 blood donors collected using the Trima 6.4 system from September 1, 2019 to March 1, 2020 were the experimental group. The differences in blood sampling pressure alarm, manual adjustment times, and loss rate of consumables were compared between the two groups.Blood donors from version 5.1 and version 6.4 during the observation period were randomly selected to compare the differences in collection time and qualified rate of platelet products. Results After the system was upgraded to version 6.4,there was no statistically significant difference in the platelet pass rate compared with version 5.1(P>0.05). Although the single collection time had been shortened, there was no statistically significant difference compared with version 5.1(P>0.05).The double collection time was significantly shorter [(57.88±7.28)min vs.(64.03±9.73)min], the difference was statistically significant(P<0.01). The number of machine pressure alarms in version 6.4(8.4% vs. 34.5%) and manual adjustment of 1–5 times, 6–10 times and 11–20 times were significantly reduced(21.4% vs. 6.6%, 4.2% vs. 1.9%, 8.9% vs. 0.0%), the differences were statistically significant(P<0.01). In version 6.4, the loss rate of consumables due to system failures and vascular factors had been significantly reduced(0.73% vs. 0.17%, P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the qualified rate of platelets collected between the two groups(P>0.05). Conclusions There is no difference on the product quality between version 6.4 and version 5.1, both of which meet the national standards, but the performance of version 6.4 is better than that of version 5.1 and is worth popularized.

关 键 词：Trima 血细胞分离机 采集时间 压力报警 

分 类 号：R457.1[医药卫生—治疗学]