Adverse events and problems in therapeutic hemapheresis. A report from the Swedish registry

Norda, Rut; Berséus, Olle; Stegmayr, Bernd

doi:10.1016/s1473-0502(01)00079-9

Cited by 53 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most large registries report a relatively low incidence (5 to 12%) of complications associated with TA procedures, with the exception of two, relatively small, single center series [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] (Figure 2). Most adverse events are categorized as Grade 1: Mild (no intervention required, 1.5%) or Grade II: Moderate (intervention required but treatment completed, 2.5%) (Table III).…”

Section: Clinical Adverse Events During Therapeutic Apheresismentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction and overview of therapeutic apheresis

Okafor

Ward

Mokrzycki

et al. 2010

J of Clinical Apheresis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Clinical Adverse Events During Therapeutic Apheresismentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction and overview of therapeutic apheresis

Okafor

Ward

Mokrzycki

et al. 2010

J of Clinical Apheresis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Así, en pacientes con afecciones graves, en las que algún factor humoral juega un papel preponderante, se ha validado el uso de esta terapia 1,5 . En las últimas décadas, se ha perfeccionado la técnica de la plasmaféresis, lo que sumado al conocimiento de las principales complicaciones ha permitido en la práctica clínica minimizar y prevenir los riesgos que implica su utilización [6][7][8][9] .…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…En nuestro trabajo no encontramos mortalidad asociada al procedimiento, probablemente por el reducido número de nuestra serie, el cual sería insuficiente como para detectar un evento tan infrecuente, ausente en algunas series 6,8,9 , con una frecuencia que se describe del orden de 0,05% 7 .…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Uso de plasmaféresis en unidades de pacientes críticos

G¹,

Andresen

Farías³

et al. 2005

Rev. méd. Chile

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Extracorporeal leukocyte removal therapy has been reported to be associated with a transient and slight fall of blood pressure, nausea and vomiting [7,8] . Although LCAP has been reported to be effective in moderate to severe cases of UC, anaphylaxis-like adverse reactions have been reported in certain patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection of Anticoagulants for Leukocytapheresis Therapy in Cases of Active Ulcerative Colitis

Kanke¹,

Hoshino²,

Tominaga³

et al. 2007

Blood Purif

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aim: Leukocytapheresis (LCAP) is an extracorporeal leukocyte removal therapy that removes immunocompetent leukocytes from the peripheral blood. Nafamostat mesilate (NM) is the most commonly used anticoagulant for LCAP due to various benefits associated with its use, such as a reduced likelihood of bleeding and minimization of adverse reactions caused by contact between blood and the LCAP device. However, adverse reactions have also been reported with NM administration. We reviewed the safety of anticoagulants other than NM, from the perspective of bradykinin production and the consequent drop in blood pressure during treatment. Methods: For each of 10 patients with ulcerative colitis, we used four types of anticoagulants sequentially [NM (30–50 mg), heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and NM (1 mg), and LMWH] for LCAP. We then examined the changes in the blood bradykinin concentrations from the perspective of adverse reactions during LCAP. Results: The bradykinin production levels from Cellsorba EX varied, depending on the type of anticoagulant used. NM alone (30–50 mg) or LMWH + NM (1 mg) inhibited bradykinin production, whereas heparin alone or LMWH alone significantly accelerated it. However, an excessive fall of blood pressure was not noted in any of the cases. Use of LMWH alone was frequently associated with pressure elevations in the column. Conclusions: Given the significant benefits of minimized adverse reactions of LCAP and of continuation of LCAP, we suggest that an appropriate selection of the anticoagulant(s) may allow safer execution of LCAP.

show abstract

Adverse events and problems in therapeutic hemapheresis. A report from the Swedish registry

Cited by 53 publications

References 25 publications

Introduction and overview of therapeutic apheresis

Introduction and overview of therapeutic apheresis

Uso de plasmaféresis en unidades de pacientes críticos

Selection of Anticoagulants for Leukocytapheresis Therapy in Cases of Active Ulcerative Colitis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About