A controlled comparison of the efficacy of hetastarch and pentastarch in granulocyte collections by centrifugal leukapheresis

J. H. Lee, S. F. Leitman, H. G. Klein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Compared with hetastarch (HS), the low molecular weight analog pentastarch (PS) has been reported to be equally effective for granulocyte collection by centrifugal leukapheresis, to result in fewer adverse donor reactions (ADR), and to have a more rapid elimination profile. We prospectively compared the granulocyte collection efficiency (GCE), granulocyte yield, and ADR in 72 randomly paired granulocytapheresis procedures from 36 volunteer donors using the model CS-3000 Plus Blood Cell Separator (CS) and either PS or HS as the sedimenting agent. Paired collections from each donor allowed us to compare the two agents directly while controlling for intrinsic donor differences. In 33 of 36 (92%) donors, HS procedures were significantly more efficient than PS procedures (P <.001). As an average, HS collections yielded 2.3 ± 0.67 x 1010 granulocytes at 58% ± 8.8% GCE, whereas PS procedures resulted in 1.4 ± 0.76 x 1010 granulocytes at 33% ± 15% GCE. No starch-induced ADR were seen with either agent. For granulocyte harvests using the CS, (1) in most donors, using HS as the red blood cell sedimenting agent during centrifugal leukapheresis results in significantly higher (nearly twofold) GCE and larger granulocyte yields in comparison with using PS, (2) ADR were not observed with either agent, and (3) the potential benefit of more rapid PS elimination should be balanced against significantly lower granulocyte yields.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)4662-4666
Number of pages5
JournalBlood
Volume86
Issue number12
StatePublished - Dec 15 1995
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Hematology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'A controlled comparison of the efficacy of hetastarch and pentastarch in granulocyte collections by centrifugal leukapheresis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this