PROSPECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY AND QUALITY PARAMETERS OF BLOOD UNITS PROCESSED BY MANUAL VERSUS FULLY AUTOMATED WHOLE BLOOD SYSTEMS IN A REGIONAL ARGENTINE BLOOD BANK
Author(s)
Nil Comasòlivas, MSc, MD1, Paula Gentile, Biochemistry2, Laura Rimorini, Biochemistry3, Victoria Paez, MD3;
1Terumo Blood and Cell Technologies, Head of Market Access and Health Economics, Zaventem, Belgium, 2Terumo Blood and Cell Technologies, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 3Centro Regional de Hemoterapia de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina
1Terumo Blood and Cell Technologies, Head of Market Access and Health Economics, Zaventem, Belgium, 2Terumo Blood and Cell Technologies, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 3Centro Regional de Hemoterapia de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare Manual (MS) and Fully Automated (FAS) whole blood processing systems by analyzing operational and quality parameters of processed blood components in a regional Argentine blood bank.
METHODS: A value stream mapping was performed to evaluate manual steps and average time to process Whole Blood Bags (WBB) into final blood components: Red Blood Cell Concentrates (RBC), Interim Platelet Units (IPU), Plasma Concentrates (PC), using both MS and FAS.
A prospective analysis of 14 quality parameters from 210 WBB (100 WBB processed with MS and 110 with FAS), 210 RBC, 210 IPU and 210 PC was also performed.
Table 1 summarizes the results.
RESULTS: MS required the operator to perform 80 manual steps. FAS required 46. Average time to process 12 WBB: MS (174 minutes), FAS (122 minutes). WBB later processed with MS versus FAS had no statistically significant differences in hemoglobin, hematocrit, leukocytes and platelets. The only difference (p-value=0.036) was in volume (MS: 458.67 ±7.27mL; FAS: 456.87 ±5.00mL). For RBC, significant differences (p-value<0.001) were found in volume (MS: 369.42 ±24.55mL; FAS: 279.07 ±19.94mL); hemoglobin (MS: 17.25 ±1.69g/dL; FAS: 19.42 ±1.08g/dL); hematocrit (MS: 51.43 ±4.56%; FAS: 55.72 ±2.53%); leukocytes (MS: 8.03E+09 ±2.46E+09/L; FAS: 2.33E+09 ±1.23E+09/L); platelets (MS: 1.17E+11 ±4.97E+10/L; FAS: 4.04E+10 ±2.48E+10/L). For IPU, significant differences (p-value<0.001) were found in volume (MS: 63.07 ±5.07mL; FAS: 60.41 ±6.06mL); leukocytes (MS: 3.82E+07 ±6.31E+07/L; FAS: 2.45E+08 ±2.69E+08/L). Visual inspection showed red cell contamination (MS: 47%; FAS: 1%) and platelet aggregates (MS: 16%; FAS: 14%). For PC, significant differences (p-value<0.001) were found in volume (MS: 195.88 ±24.52mL; FAS: 216.40 ±22.54mL).
CONCLUSIONS: FAS optimizes operational efficiency by reducing manual steps and total processing time, while improving process standardization and consistency. It also optimizes blood component quality in RBC, IPU and PC.FAS should be the preferred method for whole blood processing.
METHODS: A value stream mapping was performed to evaluate manual steps and average time to process Whole Blood Bags (WBB) into final blood components: Red Blood Cell Concentrates (RBC), Interim Platelet Units (IPU), Plasma Concentrates (PC), using both MS and FAS.
A prospective analysis of 14 quality parameters from 210 WBB (100 WBB processed with MS and 110 with FAS), 210 RBC, 210 IPU and 210 PC was also performed.
Table 1 summarizes the results.
RESULTS: MS required the operator to perform 80 manual steps. FAS required 46. Average time to process 12 WBB: MS (174 minutes), FAS (122 minutes). WBB later processed with MS versus FAS had no statistically significant differences in hemoglobin, hematocrit, leukocytes and platelets. The only difference (p-value=0.036) was in volume (MS: 458.67 ±7.27mL; FAS: 456.87 ±5.00mL). For RBC, significant differences (p-value<0.001) were found in volume (MS: 369.42 ±24.55mL; FAS: 279.07 ±19.94mL); hemoglobin (MS: 17.25 ±1.69g/dL; FAS: 19.42 ±1.08g/dL); hematocrit (MS: 51.43 ±4.56%; FAS: 55.72 ±2.53%); leukocytes (MS: 8.03E+09 ±2.46E+09/L; FAS: 2.33E+09 ±1.23E+09/L); platelets (MS: 1.17E+11 ±4.97E+10/L; FAS: 4.04E+10 ±2.48E+10/L). For IPU, significant differences (p-value<0.001) were found in volume (MS: 63.07 ±5.07mL; FAS: 60.41 ±6.06mL); leukocytes (MS: 3.82E+07 ±6.31E+07/L; FAS: 2.45E+08 ±2.69E+08/L). Visual inspection showed red cell contamination (MS: 47%; FAS: 1%) and platelet aggregates (MS: 16%; FAS: 14%). For PC, significant differences (p-value<0.001) were found in volume (MS: 195.88 ±24.52mL; FAS: 216.40 ±22.54mL).
CONCLUSIONS: FAS optimizes operational efficiency by reducing manual steps and total processing time, while improving process standardization and consistency. It also optimizes blood component quality in RBC, IPU and PC.FAS should be the preferred method for whole blood processing.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
MT10
Topic
Medical Technologies
Disease
STA: Multiple/Other Specialized Treatments