The effects of autoflow management on flow-rate alerts, collection efficiency, and collection rate during plateletpheresis

In 2018, Trima Accel software version 6.4 with autoflow management released in China. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the effects of autoflow management on plateletpheresis procedures, specifically concerning flow-rate alerts, collection efficiency (CE), and collection rate (CR). A total of 2526 procedures using Trima Accel version 6.4 from Nov 2018 to Jan 2019 were included as the test arm in this study. Another 2043 procedures using version 5.1.9 from Nov 2017 to Jan 2018 were included as the control arm. We compared the low-flow alerts and no-flow alerts, collection efficiency (CE), and collections rate (CR) between the two study arms. Also, we analyzed the incidence of autoflow increases and autoflow decreases of version 6.4. The incidence of low-flow alerts for test and control was 16.6 % and 55.3 %(χ2 = 754.024, p = 0.000), with the maximum number of low-flow signals of 6 and 51, respectively. The incidence of no-flow alerts for test and control was 7.8 % and 45.0 %(χ2 = 843.695, p = 0.000), with a maximum of 16 and 27, respectively. The CE of version 6.4 was slightly higher than version 5.1.9 (69.7 ± 6.7 % versus 68.6 ± 7.4 %). Similarly, CR was higher for version 6.4 (7.7 ± 2.1versus 7.0 ± 1.8 × 109/min). For software version 6.4, autoflow increases or autoflow decreases triggered in 99.8 % donors. Autoflow management shows significant advantages in reducing alerts and subsequent manual intervention. We observe a higher CR and CE using Trima Accel version 6.4 than version 5.1.9, which leads to a more efficient platelet collection.