Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:15062751rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0038250lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15062751lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0179101lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15062751lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1516698lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15062751lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1707455lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15062751lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0205100lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:issue2lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:dateCreated2004-4-5lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:abstractTextThe authors compared the efficiency of two different blood cell separators (Amicus and Cobe-Spectra) in collecting peripheral blood progenitor cells for autologous or homologous transplantation. A total number of 129 procedures were performed, 36 with Spectra, 93 with Amicus. There was no difference between Spectra and Amicus efficiencies for CD34+ cell collection (46.685% vs 46.235%; p=n.s) but the platelet efficiencies were 17.31% and 12.54% respectively (p=0.04) and, if autologous and allogeneic collections were considered separately, a marked difference resulted in allogeneic platelet efficiency between 6 Spectra and 23 Amicus procedures (26.83% vs 8.68%, p=0.0004). The authors were able to demonstrate that in 70 Amicus autologous collections there was a different platelet efficiency, if peripheral count was considered: 12 procedures performed with a platelet count > 100 x 10(9)/l had a very low efficiency (6.86%), but this value increased if platelet count lowered (13.02% if between 100 and 50 x 10(9)/l, 22.63% if between 50 and 0 x 10(9)/l, 23 and 35 procedures respectively). The study is preliminary and the number of collections is little, but the overall data suggest that Spectra (AutoPBSC, V 6.0) and Amicus separators have the same efficiency for collecting CD34+ cells while Amicus procedures have a very low platelet contamination, especially with donors.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:citationSubsetTlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:monthAprlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:issn1473-0502lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:authorpubmed-author:AmadoriSergio...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:authorpubmed-author:Del...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BrunoAntonioAlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:authorpubmed-author:AdornoGaspare...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BallatoreGiov...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:authorpubmed-author:Del...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:authorpubmed-author:IsacchiGianca...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:authorpubmed-author:TendasAndreaAlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:authorpubmed-author:PostorinoMass...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:authorpubmed-author:PalombiFrance...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:volume30lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:pagination131-6lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:dateRevised2007-11-15lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15062751...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15062751...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15062751...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15062751...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15062751...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15062751...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15062751...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15062751...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15062751...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15062751...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15062751...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15062751...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15062751...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15062751...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:15062751...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:year2004lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:articleTitleCollection of peripheral progenitor cells: a comparison between Amicus and Cobe-Spectra blood cell separators.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:affiliationDepartment of Immunohematology, Tor Vergata University of Rome, Viale Oxford, 81, 00133 Rome, Italy. medtrasf@libero.itlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:15062751pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed