Does prophylactic calcium in apheresis cause more harm than good? – Centre heterogeneity within the World Apheresis Association Register prevents firm conclusions

Toss, Fredrik; Edgren, Gustaf; Berlin, Gösta; Stegmayr, Bernd; Witt, Volker

doi:10.1111/vox.12698

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The standardization of stem cell collection may be responsible for the small number of adverse events in this population compared to in patients performing direct therapeutic plasma exchange [4]. Differences between centers also are present, and this encourages specific statistical analyses and interpretations [34].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the World Apheresis Association Registry Helps to Improve the Treatment Quality of Therapeutic Apheresis

Stegmayr

Newman²,

Witt

et al. 2021

Transfus Med Hemother

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Therapeutic apheresis (TA) is prescribed to patients that suffer from a severe progressive disease that is not sufficiently treated by conventional medications. A way to gain more knowledge about this treatment is usually by the local analysis of data. However, the use of large quality assessment registries enables analyses of even rare findings. Here, we report some of the recent data from the World Apheresis Association (WAA) registry. Data from >104,000 procedures were documented, and TA was performed on >15,000 patients. The main indication for TA was the collection of autologous stem cells (45% of patients) as part of therapy for therapy. Collection of stem cells from donors for allogeneic transplantation was performed in 11% of patients. Patients with indications such as neurological diseases underwent plasma exchange (28%). Extracorporeal photochemotherapy, lipid apheresis, and antibody removal were other indications. Side effects recorded in the registry have decreased significantly over the years, with approximately only 10/10,000 procedures being interrupted for medical reasons. Conclusion: Collection of data from TA procedures within a multinational and multicenter concept facilitates the improvement of treatment by enabling the analysis of and feedback on indications, procedures, effects, and side effects.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the World Apheresis Association Registry Helps to Improve the Treatment Quality of Therapeutic Apheresis

Stegmayr

Newman²,

Witt

et al. 2021

Transfus Med Hemother

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This practice has also been mentioned in previous studies. 17,18 Vasovagal reactions may occur in the form of sweating, dizziness or syncope. Sweating was observed in three (1.5%) donors with Baxter CS 3000 plus and two (1%) donors with Haemonetics MCS plus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Haemonetics MCS Plus and Baxter CS 3000 Plus for Platelet Apheresis: Experienceat a Tertiary Care Hospital

Saadia¹,

Naeem²,

Alvi³

et al. 2020

BIOMEDICA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objective: Platelet transfusion is one of the most crucial therapeutic approaches in medicine. Single Donor Platelets (SDP) are being preferred because of higher platelet count per unit, leukocyte reduction during collection and fewer donor exposures thus reducing the risk of infection and alloimmunization. This study was conducted to compare Haemonetics MCS plus with Baxter CS3000 plus cell separator in terms of processing time, quality of platelet concentrates, donor experience and individual choice. Methods: Two hundred platelet pheresis procedures performed on Haemonetics MCS plus during a period from January 2018 to August 2019 were compared with the same number of procedures performed using Baxter CS3000 plus cell separator from July 2015 to April 2019. Results: The mean platelet count of the product was higher with Baxter, 1741.6 ± 347 x 10 3 /μL as compared to1676 ± 301 x 10 3 /μL with Haemonetics. No significant difference between the two instruments was observed regarding processing time, product volume and yield. Conclusion:The two instruments are comparable in terms of time, volume and yield of the product but Haemonetics is better because of donors' comfort and for being operator friendly.

show abstract

“…Weight of the donor and ACD required for the procedure are the important predictor for delayed the muscular spasms. A study by Bolan and collegues has shown the benefit of giving high doses (2 g) of prophylactic oral calcium, though a recent meta‐analysis suggests no significant co‐relation between prophylactic oral calcium supplements and prevention of citrate toxicity. Blood donors with low body weight (≤75 kg) and moderate platelet counts (≤230 × 10 3 /μL) (usually require a higher volume of ACD for the procedure) may be given prophylactic oral calcium tablet to decrease the citrate toxicity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Delayed adverse events in male plateletpheresis donors: Initial insights on donor safety

Gupta

Bajpai

2019

J of Clinical Apheresis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Minimal information is available regarding delayed adverse donor events (D-ADEs) in plateletpheresis donors. Proactive follow up of donors for D-ADEs is not done routinely by BTS. The aim of this study was to analyze frequency and type of D-ADEs and its correlation with contributory factors if any. Methods: In this prospective observational study all eligible donors were contacted by telephone twice and asked about general wellbeing and questions specific to adverse donor events (ADEs). Donors were called at 24 hours and 2 weeks after donation. The ADEs were categorized in accordance with the International Society of Blood Transfusion standard guidelines. Results: A total of 531 donors were analyzed in the study. D-ADEs were more common as compared to immediate ADEs (I-ADEs) (19.21% vs 5.46%, P < .0001). The most common D-ADEs were bruises (7.34%) and sore arms (3.58%). Localized D-ADEs in form of bruise and hematomas were more frequent as compared to systemic D-ADEs like fatigue and vaso-vagal reactions (16.01% vs 3.20% P < .0001). Repeat donors had a lower incidence of systemic D-ADEs (1.61% vs 6.96%, P = .001). Donors with weight ≤75 kg and platelet count ≤230 × 10 3 μL were more prone to systemic D-ADEs (P < .05). Citrate toxicity was more common in donors with weight ≤ 75 kg (P = .002). Conclusions: Plateletpheresis procedures are relatively safer without any sequelae. D-ADEs are more common than I-ADEs. Localized D-ADEs are more frequent than systemic D-ADEs. First-time donors are more prone to D-ADEs than repeat donors. K E Y W O R D Sapheresis donor safety, delayed adverse donor events, hematoma, plateletpheresis, vaso-vagal reactions

show abstract

Does prophylactic calcium in apheresis cause more harm than good? – Centre heterogeneity within the World Apheresis Association Register prevents firm conclusions

Cited by 7 publications

References 23 publications

Using the World Apheresis Association Registry Helps to Improve the Treatment Quality of Therapeutic Apheresis

Using the World Apheresis Association Registry Helps to Improve the Treatment Quality of Therapeutic Apheresis

Comparison of Haemonetics MCS Plus and Baxter CS 3000 Plus for Platelet Apheresis: Experienceat a Tertiary Care Hospital

Delayed adverse events in male plateletpheresis donors: Initial insights on donor safety

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About