National survey of apheresis activity in Italy (2000)

The aim of this study was to analyze the impact of various donor and machine parameters on PLT yield in 127 PLT apheresis procedures, to optimize PLT yield achieving clinical and economic advantages. One hundred and twenty-seven apheresis procedures were analyzed. Age, gender, volume processed, Hb, and PLT precounts were included as donor predicting variables. AC infusion rate, processing time, and plasma volume collected with PLTs were assessed as machine parameters. We evaluated the post-transfusion effectiveness in 23 patients with thrombocytopenia, studying the effect of PLT dose, ABO group, and PLT storage time. Females gave higher yields, compared to males, P<0.01. PLT yield correlated positively with PLT precount (r=0.512), and TBV (r=0.404), and negatively with donor preapheresis Hb (r=-0.306). Processing time and AC infusion rate had a positive impact on PLT yield. Post-apheresis decrease in PLT count was 53.6+/-26.3x10(11). Donors with Hb>or=12 g/dl, donated safely. Most of the complications were citrate related (13.4% of all procedures). PLT increments in transfused patients correlated positively with the number of units transfused (r=0.41), and negatively with PLT storage days (r=-0.342). PLT increments in patients receiving ABO-compatible PLTs were 75% higher, compared to the increments in patients receiving incompatible PLTs. PLT count and volume processed were the main predictors of PLT yield. Increasing the processing time, the AC infusion rate, or the volume of plasma obtained with PLTs can increase PLT yields. High PLT dose, short storage time, as well as ABO compatibility should be considered during PLT transfusion.

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 86%

Factors affecting platelet yield and their impact on the platelet increment of patients receiving single donor PLT transfusion

Enein

Hussein

Shafie

et al. 2007

“…As with data regarding adult apheresis [16][17][18], procedure-related complications were classified as mild, moderate, and severe and related to the main types of procedures.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Periodical surveys of apheresis activity have thus been carried out by the Italian Society of Hemapheresis and Cellular Manipulation (SIdEM) beginning in 1996 [16,17]. In 2005, when the last survey was carried out [18], the Italian Apheresis Units (AUs) were also requested to provide data on pediatric procedures, which was carried out during that year under their supervision.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Italian registry of pediatric therapeutic apheresis: A report on activity during 2005

Silvestro¹,

Tison²,

Vicarioto³

et al. 2008

Self Cite

The results of the 2005 Survey of the Italian Society for Apheresis and Cell Manipulation (SIdEM) reporting on the pediatric procedures carried out in 18 Italian Apheresis Units are presented here. Utilizing a standardized questionnaire, the survey collected data on techniques, types of blood separators, clinical indications, and adverse events. A total of 1,693 apheresis procedures were carried out in 355 pediatric patients: 219 plasma-exchange, 291 peripheral blood stem cell collections, 791 extracorporeal photochemotherapy (ECP), 265 LDL-apheresis, 71 erythro-exchange, 9 cytoreductive apheresis, 47 immunoadsorption sessions. Adverse events were registered in 94 procedures (5.6%), most of which of mild entity, e.g., insufficient flow rate (50.0%) and symptomatic hypocalcemia (24.4%). Our data indicate that all types of apheresis procedures can be safely carried out in children. ECP, utilized primarily for the treatment of graft versus host disease (GvHD) and rejection of solid organ transplantation, are burgeoning procedures in pediatric patients, whereas plasma exchange, which is a common treatment in adults, is infrequently utilized in pediatric medicine.

“…Therapeutic apheresis-related side effects are few, usually mild, although more common than in productive apheresis [7]. It has to be pointed out, however, that the loss of 5 patients, with a gross mortality of 0.03%, was reported in cases treated with PE in 4 cases, and with TP in 1 case, and this overview may confirm that plasma processing is generally safe and well tolerated by patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…Moreover, other experts in Neurology, Immunology, Intensive Care, or Metabolic Diseases started therapeutic apheresis on their own, and later shared their experience with specialists in other fields. Initially, through the collaboration with the Italian Apheresis Society (SIDE), which mainly reported data from Apheresis Units and Blood Banks, and whose interdisciplinary character is well recognized, the idea of a common apheresis registry was undertaken, but it had to be postponed, due to the differences in the collection of data [7].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Italian Registry for Therapeutic Apheresis. A report from the Apheresis Study Group of the Italian Society of Nephrology

Passalacqua¹,

Staffolani²,

Busnach

et al. 2005

Many clinical indications and different technical issues have been reported on therapeutic apheresis: much criticism has also been recorded in several instances, mainly due to the lack of large clinical trials to validate collected data. A Registry where all the available data can be organized and analyzed therefore becomes a priority for all the professionals involved in apheresis. The purpose of this report is to describe the data submitted from 1994 to 2004 from 15,285 treatments on 1,477 patients from 44 Centers, including mainly, but not exclusively, Nephrological Units, collected by the Apheresis Study Group of the Italian Society of Nephrology in 15 Italian regions. Plasma exchange accounted for 56.2% of the procedures, and of these 50.4% were performed by filtration. Plasma treatment was used in 40.1% of procedures, namely with Protein A immunoadsorption (14.6%), LDL‐Cholesterol dextran sulfate adsorption (9.7%), and semiselective cascade or double filtration (12.6%). Cell apheresis, limited to photopheresis, was used in 0.85% of cases, and whole blood treatment (direct adsorption lipoprotein, and molecular adsorption recirculating system) in 2.7%. The procedures analyzed here account for less than 20% of estimated therapeutic apheresis performed in Italy, according to the national survey of activity performed for year 2000 by the Italian Apheresis Society. Notwithstanding that the data are largely incomplete, they are sufficiently informative for a definite trend: plasma treatment with filtration on fractionation filters and adsorption must be used as often as possible, instead of plasma exchange, thus obtaining the most selective removals. J. Clin. Apheresis © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.