Abstract
The efficacy of a new leukocyte removal filter, Imugard E, made of polyvinyl-alcohol was compared with the Sepacell R-500N, a non-woven polyester filter. Red cell concentrates (RCC) was prepared from 400ml of whole blood, then filtered within 8 hours after collection, or on 3rd or 10th day of storage at 4°C. The effect of addition of saline to RCC prior to filtration was tested for Imugard E. After the filtration, the saline was added to the leukocyte-depleted RCC through the filter to make the final volume of the RCC to 400ml. Saline was primed for Sepacell R-500N, but not for Imugard E.
Both Imugard E and Sepacell R-500N could remove more than 99.1% of leukocytes in most situations. The differences were not statistically significant. When fresh RCC was filtered with Sepacell R-500N, the leukocyte removal rate decreased to 95% because of the leakage of granulocytes, but this could be prevented by cooling the RCC at 4°C for 3 hours before filtration. The average number of residual leukocytes in the filtered RCC stored 3 to 10 days by either filter was less than 1.85×107cells/bag. The recovery of red cells in Imugard E treated RCC (saline-added) was about 90% before rinse, and it increased to 98% after rinse. These numbers were better than those in the RCC treated by Sepacell R-500N. On the other hand, the platelet removal rate was higher in the RCC filtered with Sepacell R-500N than that filtered with Imugard E.
Thus, the new leukocyte removal filter Imugard E seems to have the capacity to prepare leukocyte-depleted RCC equivalent to those filtered by the Sepacell R-500N.
