Hemapheresis – the efficient therapeutic technique in clinical practice

Česká verzia

Authors: Z. Gašová
Authors place of work: Ústav hematologie a krevní transfuze Praha, ředitel prof. MUDr. Marek Trněný, CSc.
Published in the journal: Vnitř Lék 2012; 58(Suppl 2): 91-102
Category:

Summary

Hemapheresis technique has been used widely in the clinical practice. It enables preparing high yields of blood components or helps to remove the pathogenetic substance from the patient’s circulation. In the Institute of Hematology and Blood Transfusion many types of therapeutic methods have been used. Procedures include cell depletion – with removing of the extent of leukocytes, red cell and platelets from the patient’s circulation. Other methods are therapeutic plasma exchange, red blood cells exchange, immunoadsorption of IgG, extracorporeal photochemotherapy (ECP), and peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) collections. In our previous studies we have focused to optimization of the PBPC collection techniques in donors and in patients. The large volume leukapheresis technique was proved as more efficient than the standard collections, and would be preferred in all circumstances when donors or patients can tolerate it. “The off line” method of Extracorporeal Photochemotherapy (ECP) was introduced in the therapy of patients with chronic GVHD (cGVHD) and cutaneous T cell lymphomas. We tried to evaluate the immunomodulatory and clinical effect of the “off line” ECP. The immature dendritic cells (DC’s) were found in mononuclear cell concentrates in patients with cGVHD, and ECP was efficient in the therapy of patients with cGVHD and CTCL. The frequency and types of the adverse reactions associated with therapeutic hemapheresis were evaluated. The number of 330 reactions (12%) was observed in the course of 2,827 therapeutic procedures, including PBPC collections. Hypocalcemia, insufficient function of the venous access, and hypotension were the most frequent. The majority of reactions was mild to moderate, and reactions were treated efficiently. Only in two patients the acute, severe and life threathening reactions have occured – bleeding in the placement of the central venous catheter and the septic reaction. Fortunately, the serious complications were managed successfully. Despite the adverse reactions, which can occur occasionally, hemapheresis technique is considered as a relatively safe therapeutic procedure. However, preapheresis evaluation of the clinical condition of the patients and identification “risky” patients would be useful.

Key words:
therapeutic hemapheresis – hemapheresis – plasma exchange – red blood cell exchange – leukocytapheresis – PBPC – imunoadsorption – extracorporeal photochemotherapy

Zdroje

1. McCullough J. Transfusion Medicine. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone 2005: 1–7, 77–100, 131–161.

2. Van Aken W, Genetet B. Transfusion Medicine: European Course on Blood Transfusion. Paris: Centre National d‘Enseignement a‘ Distance 1994: 353–377.

3. McLeod BC, Price TH, Weinstein R. Apheresis: principles and practice. 2nd ed. Bethesda, MD: AABB Press 2003: 1–26, 49–62, 95–157.

4. Gašová Z. Od odběrů plné krve k multikomponentnímu dárcovství. Vnitř Lék 2005; 51: 274–275.

5. Eder A. Evidence-based selection criteria to protect blood donors. J Clin Apher 2010; 25: 331–337.

6. Lachmannová J. Očišťovací metody krve. Praha: Grada Publishing 1999.

7. Grima KM. Therapeutic apheresis in hematological and oncological diseases. J Clin Apher 2000; 15: 28–52.

8. Okafor C, Ward DM, Mokrzycki MH et al. Introduction and Overview of Therapeutic Apheresis. J Clin Apher 2010; 25: 240–249.

9. Ward D. Conventional apheresis therapies: a review. J Clin Apher 2011; 26: 230–238.

10. Gašová Z. Terapeutické hemaferézy. Transfuze Hemat Dnes 2001; 3: 88–93.

11. Szcepiorkowski ZM, Winters JL, Bandarenko N et al. Guidelines on the use of therapeutic apheresis in clinical practice – evidence-based approach from the Apheresis Applications Committee of the American Society for Apheresis. J Clin Apher 2010; 25: 83–177.

12. Marques MB, Schwartz J. Update on extracorporeal photopheresis in heart and lung transplantation. J Clin Apher 2011; 26: 146–151.

13. Ward D. Extracorporeal photopheresis: how, when, and why. J Clin Apher 2011; 26: 276–285.

14. Sanford KW, Balogun RA. Extracorporeal photopheresis: clinical use so far. J Clin Apher 2012; 27: 126–131.

15. Gašová Z. Fotochemoterapie extrakorporální. Plazmaferéza výměnná. Výkony depleční terapeutické. In: Horký K (ed.). Lékařské repetitorium. Praha: Galén 2003: 158, 447, 680–681.

16. Lu Q, Nedelcu E, Ziman A et al. Standardized protocol to identify high-risk patients undergoing therapeutic apheresis procedures. J Clin Apher 2018; 23: 111–115.

17. Torloni AS, Lumadue J, Zubair A. Therapeutic apheresis: when things go wrong. J Clin Apher 2012; 27: 168–171.

18. Balogun RA, Abdel-Rahman EM. Selected questions and answers given by apheresis medicine experts at TAA 2010. J Clin Apher 2011; 26: 297–305.

19. Gasova Z, Marinov I, Hruba A et al. The efficiency of PBPC collections and the relationship to the precollection concentration of CD 34+ cells in blood. Transfus Sci 1999; 20: 181–188.

20. Gašová Z, Ludvíková Z, Kučerová I et al. Separace hemopoetických progenitorových buněk z periferní krve (PBPC) u pacientů s hematoonkologickými malignitami. Čas Lék Česk 1999; 138: 369–373.

21. Gašová Z, Ludvíková Z, Böhmová M et al. Standardní versus velkoobjemové separace PBPC. Transfuze Hematol Dnes 2000; 6: 11–17.

22. Polouckova A, Vodvarkova S, Kobylka P et al. Comparison of two different methods for CD 34+ selection and T cell depletion in peripheral blood stem cell grafts – our experiences with CellPro, E rosetting and CliniMACS technique. Neoplasma 2001; 48: 374–381.

23. Gasova Z, Marinov I, Vodvarkova S et al. PBPC collection techniques: standard versus large volume leukapheresis (LVL) in donors and in patients. Transfus Apher Sci 2005; 32: 167–176.

24. Trněný M, Vacková B, Pytlík R et al. Vysokodávkovaná terapie s autologní transplantací krvetvorných buněk u nemocných s Hodgkinovým lymfomem. Dlouhodobé sledování nemocných v jednom centru. Čas Lék Česk 2006; 145: 19–24.

25. Spisek R, Gasova Z, Bartunkova J. Maturation state of dendritic cells during the extracorporeal photopheresis and its relevance for the treatment of chronic graft-versus-host disease. Transfusion 2006; 46: 55–65.

26. Bartosova J, Kuzelova K, Pluskalova M et al. UVA-activated 8-methoxypsoralen (PUVA) causes G2/M cell cycle arrest in Karpas 299 T-lymphoma cells. J Photochem Photobiol B 2006; 85: 39–48.

27. Mohty M, Duarte RF, Croockewit S et al. The role of plerixafor in optimizing peripheral blood stem cell mobilization for autologous stem cell transplantation. Leukemia 2011; 25: 1–6.

28. Gasova Z, Spisek R, Dolezalova L et al. Extracorporeal photochemotherapy (ECP) in the treatment of patients with c-GVHD and CTCL. Transfus Apher Sci 2007; 36: 149–158.

29. Gašová Z. Hemoterapie, Terapeutické hemaferézy. In: Klener P (ed.). Vnitřní lékařství. Praha: Galén 2006: 507–514.

30. Gasova Z, Bhuiyan-Ludvikova Z, Böhmova M et al. PBPC collections: management, techniques and risks. Transfus Apher Sci 2010; 43: 237–243.

31. Lysak D, Koristek Z, Gasova Z et al. Efficacy and safety of PBSC collection in elderly donors: does age interfere? J Clin Apher 2011; 26: 9–16.