Vascular access for optimal hematopoietic stem cell collection.
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Blood Component Removal
/ methods
Catheterization, Central Venous
/ adverse effects
Catheterization, Peripheral
/ adverse effects
Female
Hematopoietic Stem Cell Mobilization
/ adverse effects
Hematopoietic Stem Cells
/ cytology
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation
/ methods
Retrospective Studies
Young Adult
hematopoietic stem cell collection
vascular access
Journal
Journal of clinical apheresis
ISSN: 1098-1101
Titre abrégé: J Clin Apher
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8216305
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
08
01
2020
revised:
23
07
2020
accepted:
24
07
2020
pubmed:
28
8
2020
medline:
9
11
2021
entrez:
28
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation of cytokine-mobilized peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) is increasingly used to treat patients with hematologic disorders. Different types of vascular access have been exploited for the apheresis procedure, including peripheral veins (PV) and central venous catheter (CVC). In some cases, PV access is unavailable. There are few published data on the efficiency and quality of harvesting with different types of vascular access. This study brings out complications and morbidity of this procedure linked to these different access. We performed a comparative, retrospective, single-center study of hematopoietic stem cell collection using these two types of vascular access. We compared the efficiency and complication rate for 617 adults apheresis sessions in 401 patients and healthy donors, for PBSC collection via PV or CVC between 2010 and 2016. The quality of the HSC product was evaluated in terms of the total CD34 + count and neutrophil contamination. The PV and CVC groups did not differ significantly in terms of the quality of the apheresis product, mean ± SD CD34 + cells collected in PV group was 383.1 ± 402.7 × 10e6 and 298.8 ± 372.7 × 10e6 and the level of neutrophil contamination was 21.0 ± 17.8% in the PV group and 20.6 ± 18.4% in the CVC group. The complication rate did not differ between the two groups. The type of vascular access for apheresis hematopoietic stem cell harvesting must be determined by trained staff. Successful harvesting can be performed via PV then CVC is not needed or not available.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation of cytokine-mobilized peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) is increasingly used to treat patients with hematologic disorders. Different types of vascular access have been exploited for the apheresis procedure, including peripheral veins (PV) and central venous catheter (CVC). In some cases, PV access is unavailable. There are few published data on the efficiency and quality of harvesting with different types of vascular access. This study brings out complications and morbidity of this procedure linked to these different access.
METHODS
METHODS
We performed a comparative, retrospective, single-center study of hematopoietic stem cell collection using these two types of vascular access. We compared the efficiency and complication rate for 617 adults apheresis sessions in 401 patients and healthy donors, for PBSC collection via PV or CVC between 2010 and 2016. The quality of the HSC product was evaluated in terms of the total CD34 + count and neutrophil contamination.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The PV and CVC groups did not differ significantly in terms of the quality of the apheresis product, mean ± SD CD34 + cells collected in PV group was 383.1 ± 402.7 × 10e6 and 298.8 ± 372.7 × 10e6 and the level of neutrophil contamination was 21.0 ± 17.8% in the PV group and 20.6 ± 18.4% in the CVC group. The complication rate did not differ between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The type of vascular access for apheresis hematopoietic stem cell harvesting must be determined by trained staff. Successful harvesting can be performed via PV then CVC is not needed or not available.
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
12-19Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Agence de la biomédecine. Le rapport annuel médical et scientifique 2016 [Internet]. [cited 2018 Oct 11]; https://www.agence-biomedecine.fr/annexes/bilan2016/donnees/cellules/04-national/synthese.htm.
Reddy RL. Mobilization and collection of peripheral blood progenitor cells for transplantation. Transfus Apher Sci. 2005;32(1):63-72.
Rhodes B, Anderlini P. Allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell collection as of 2008. Transfus Apher Sci. 2008;38:219-227.
Hölig K, Blechschmidt M, Kramer M, et al. Peripheral blood stem cell collection in allogeneic donors: impact of venous access. Transfusion. 2012;52(12):2600-2605.
Hölig K, Kramer M, Kroschinsky F, et al. Safety and efficacy of hematopoietic stem cell collection from mobilized peripheral blood in unrelated volunteers-12 years of single-Centre experience in 3928 donors. Blood. 2009;114:3757-3763.
Leitner GC, Baumgartner K, Kalhs P, et al. Regeneration, health status and quality of life after rhG-CSF-stimulated stem cell collection in healthy donors: a cross-sectional study. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2009;43:357-363.
Malchesky PS, Koo AP, Skibinski CI, Hadsell AT, Rybicki LA. Apheresis technologies and clinical applications: the 2007 international apheresis registry. Ther Apher Dial. 2010;14(1):52-73.
Shariatmadar S, Noto TA. Femoral vascular access for large-volume collection of peripheral blood progenitor cells. J Clin Apheresis. 1998;13(3):99-102.
Moreiras-Plaza M, Albo C, Ares C. Efficacy and safety of femoral vascular access for peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) collection. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2004;33(3):347-350.
Putensen D, Leverett D, Patel B, Rivera J. Is peripheral access for apheresis procedures underutilized in clinical practice?-a single Centre experience. J Clin Apheresis. 2017;32(6):553-559.
Pulsipher MA, Chitphakdithai P, Miller JP, et al. Adverse events among 2408 unrelated donors of peripheral blood stem cells: results of a prospective trial from the National Marrow Donor Program. Blood. 2009;113(15):3604-3611.
O'Leary MF, Dunbar NM, Kim HC, et al. Venous access for hematopoietic progenitor cell collection: an international survey by the ASFA HPC donor subcommittee. J Clin Apheresis. 2016;31(6):529-534.
Anderlini P, Rizzo JD, Nugent ML, et al. Peripheral blood stem cell donation: an analysis from the international bone marrow transplant registry (IBMTR) and European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplant (EBMT) databases. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2001;27(7):689-692.
Mokrzycki MH, Balogun RA. Therapeutic apheresis: a review of complications and recommendations for prevention and management. J Clin Apheresis. 2011;26(5):243-248.
Padmanabhan A. Cellular collection by apheresis. Transfusion. 2018;58(Suppl 1):598-604.
McDiarmid S, Bredeson C, Huebsch LB. Selection of appropriate venous access for the collection of peripheral blood progenitor cells by experienced apheresis nurses. J Clin Apheresis. 1999;14(2):51-56.
Salazar et al. Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous access for therapeutic apheresis procedures reduces need for central venous catheters. J Clin Apher. 2017;32(4):266-269.