通过大容量白血病收集自体外周血干细胞的血管通路:单中心经验。

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 HEMATOLOGY
Ines Bojanić MD, PhD, Greta Novosel MSN, Marijana Lukač Baričević MSN, Petar Škrnjug MSN, Elena Horvat BSN, Sanja Mazić MD, PhD, Josip Batinić MD, PhD, Sandra Bašić Kinda MD, PhD, Branka Golubić Ćepulić MD, PhD
{"title":"通过大容量白血病收集自体外周血干细胞的血管通路:单中心经验。","authors":"Ines Bojanić MD, PhD,&nbsp;Greta Novosel MSN,&nbsp;Marijana Lukač Baričević MSN,&nbsp;Petar Škrnjug MSN,&nbsp;Elena Horvat BSN,&nbsp;Sanja Mazić MD, PhD,&nbsp;Josip Batinić MD, PhD,&nbsp;Sandra Bašić Kinda MD, PhD,&nbsp;Branka Golubić Ćepulić MD, PhD","doi":"10.1002/jca.22095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) harvesting requires reliable and safe vascular access. In our institution, a change of practice was implemented and the central venous catheter (CVC) placement for all autologous PBSC collections was abandoned in favor of a careful evaluation of peripheral venous access (PVA) for each individual patient. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the rate of patients with adequate peripheral veins for autologous PBSC collection and compare patient characteristics, collection efficacy, and complication rate between patients with PVA and CVC.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>Peripheral veins were assessed by the apheresis nurse team in all patients referred between January 2020 and July 2021 to autologous PBSC collection. Only in case of difficult venous access, CVC was inserted. Large volume leukapheresis (LVL) procedures, which processed ≥3 total blood volumes, were performed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>In 65 (57%) patients PVA was used, while 49 (43%) patients required placement of short-term CVC. Peripheral venous access was successfully used significantly more often in males (69.8%) <i>(P = 0.010),</i> and patients with multiple myeloma (71.0%) than in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (35.9%) and Hodgkin's lymphoma patients (33.3%) (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). There was a significant difference in the type of prior administered chemotherapy; in the patients who received cytostatics free chemotherapy, PVA was used more often (75.0%) (<i>P</i> = 0.007). In terms of the efficacy and safety of LVLs, there were no differences between procedures performed using PVA and CVCs.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Peripheral venous access is feasible for autologous PBSC collection in more than a half of patients, in particular in those with multiple myeloma. Changes in the treatment of multiple myeloma, using new proteasome inhibitors-based and immunomodulatory agents that do not adversely affect peripheral veins, have enabled the use of PVA even at the high blood flow rates required by LVL. Peripheral venous access is not associated with safety issues or with a lesser collection efficiency, and it is cost-effective as well. Each patient referred to autologous PBSC collection needs to be evaluated individually by the experienced apheresis team for the most appropriate venous access.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15390,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Apheresis","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vascular access for autologous peripheral blood stem cells collection by large volume leukapheresis: Single center experience\",\"authors\":\"Ines Bojanić MD, PhD,&nbsp;Greta Novosel MSN,&nbsp;Marijana Lukač Baričević MSN,&nbsp;Petar Škrnjug MSN,&nbsp;Elena Horvat BSN,&nbsp;Sanja Mazić MD, PhD,&nbsp;Josip Batinić MD, PhD,&nbsp;Sandra Bašić Kinda MD, PhD,&nbsp;Branka Golubić Ćepulić MD, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jca.22095\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) harvesting requires reliable and safe vascular access. In our institution, a change of practice was implemented and the central venous catheter (CVC) placement for all autologous PBSC collections was abandoned in favor of a careful evaluation of peripheral venous access (PVA) for each individual patient. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the rate of patients with adequate peripheral veins for autologous PBSC collection and compare patient characteristics, collection efficacy, and complication rate between patients with PVA and CVC.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Method</h3>\\n \\n <p>Peripheral veins were assessed by the apheresis nurse team in all patients referred between January 2020 and July 2021 to autologous PBSC collection. Only in case of difficult venous access, CVC was inserted. Large volume leukapheresis (LVL) procedures, which processed ≥3 total blood volumes, were performed.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>In 65 (57%) patients PVA was used, while 49 (43%) patients required placement of short-term CVC. Peripheral venous access was successfully used significantly more often in males (69.8%) <i>(P = 0.010),</i> and patients with multiple myeloma (71.0%) than in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (35.9%) and Hodgkin's lymphoma patients (33.3%) (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). There was a significant difference in the type of prior administered chemotherapy; in the patients who received cytostatics free chemotherapy, PVA was used more often (75.0%) (<i>P</i> = 0.007). In terms of the efficacy and safety of LVLs, there were no differences between procedures performed using PVA and CVCs.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Peripheral venous access is feasible for autologous PBSC collection in more than a half of patients, in particular in those with multiple myeloma. Changes in the treatment of multiple myeloma, using new proteasome inhibitors-based and immunomodulatory agents that do not adversely affect peripheral veins, have enabled the use of PVA even at the high blood flow rates required by LVL. Peripheral venous access is not associated with safety issues or with a lesser collection efficiency, and it is cost-effective as well. Each patient referred to autologous PBSC collection needs to be evaluated individually by the experienced apheresis team for the most appropriate venous access.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Apheresis\",\"volume\":\"39 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Apheresis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jca.22095\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Apheresis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jca.22095","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:外周血干细胞(PBSC)的采集需要可靠和安全的血管通路。在我们的机构中,实施了一项实践变更,放弃了所有自体PBSC采集的中心静脉导管(CVC)放置,转而对每个患者的外周静脉通路(PVA)进行仔细评估。这项前瞻性研究的目的是评估有足够外周静脉进行自体PBSC采集的患者的比率,并比较PVA和CVC患者的患者特征、采集效果和并发症发生率。方法:由单采护士团队对2020年1月至2021年7月期间转诊的所有自体PBSC采集患者的外周静脉进行评估。只有在静脉通路困难的情况下,才插入CVC。进行大容量白血病(LVL)手术,处理≥3个总血容量。结果:65例(57%)患者使用了PVA,49例(43%)患者需要放置短期CVC。男性(69.8%)成功地使用了外周静脉通路(P = 0.010)和多发性骨髓瘤患者(71.0%)高于非霍奇金淋巴瘤(35.9%)和霍奇金淋巴瘤患者(33.3%)(P 结论:对于超过一半的患者,特别是多发性骨髓瘤患者,外周静脉通路用于自体多能干细胞采集是可行的。多发性骨髓瘤治疗的变化,使用新的基于蛋白酶体抑制剂的免疫调节剂,不会对外周静脉产生不利影响,使PVA即使在LVL所需的高血流量下也能使用。外周静脉通路与安全问题或较低的收集效率无关,而且具有成本效益。每一位接受自体PBSC采集的患者都需要由经验丰富的单采团队单独评估,以获得最合适的静脉通路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Vascular access for autologous peripheral blood stem cells collection by large volume leukapheresis: Single center experience

Introduction

Peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) harvesting requires reliable and safe vascular access. In our institution, a change of practice was implemented and the central venous catheter (CVC) placement for all autologous PBSC collections was abandoned in favor of a careful evaluation of peripheral venous access (PVA) for each individual patient. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the rate of patients with adequate peripheral veins for autologous PBSC collection and compare patient characteristics, collection efficacy, and complication rate between patients with PVA and CVC.

Method

Peripheral veins were assessed by the apheresis nurse team in all patients referred between January 2020 and July 2021 to autologous PBSC collection. Only in case of difficult venous access, CVC was inserted. Large volume leukapheresis (LVL) procedures, which processed ≥3 total blood volumes, were performed.

Results

In 65 (57%) patients PVA was used, while 49 (43%) patients required placement of short-term CVC. Peripheral venous access was successfully used significantly more often in males (69.8%) (P = 0.010), and patients with multiple myeloma (71.0%) than in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (35.9%) and Hodgkin's lymphoma patients (33.3%) (P < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the type of prior administered chemotherapy; in the patients who received cytostatics free chemotherapy, PVA was used more often (75.0%) (P = 0.007). In terms of the efficacy and safety of LVLs, there were no differences between procedures performed using PVA and CVCs.

Conclusion

Peripheral venous access is feasible for autologous PBSC collection in more than a half of patients, in particular in those with multiple myeloma. Changes in the treatment of multiple myeloma, using new proteasome inhibitors-based and immunomodulatory agents that do not adversely affect peripheral veins, have enabled the use of PVA even at the high blood flow rates required by LVL. Peripheral venous access is not associated with safety issues or with a lesser collection efficiency, and it is cost-effective as well. Each patient referred to autologous PBSC collection needs to be evaluated individually by the experienced apheresis team for the most appropriate venous access.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
13.30%
发文量
70
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Apheresis publishes articles dealing with all aspects of hemapheresis. Articles welcomed for review include those reporting basic research and clinical applications of therapeutic plasma exchange, therapeutic cytapheresis, therapeutic absorption, blood component collection and transfusion, donor recruitment and safety, administration of hemapheresis centers, and innovative applications of hemapheresis technology. Experimental studies, clinical trials, case reports, and concise reviews will be welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信