ArticleHippokratia
A two-year analysis of therapeutic apheresis practices in a tertiary center: are we chasing the new indications?
Article in Hippokratia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTherapeutic apheresis (TA) as primary or adjunctive therapy proved itself in a broad spectrum of diseases. This study aims to present TA practices in a tertiary center with an emphasis on the rate of the utility of TA on the new American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) indications.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of data regarding TA applications through our electronic medical database from June 2016 to July 2018. The data included demographics, clinical indications, and procedural characteristics. We also searched for the rate of the utility of TA procedures on new ASFA indications by entering both the diagnostic and TA modality codes for these indications on the electronic database during the study interval.
resultsA total of 720 TA procedures were performed on 96 patients (54 males, 42 females, with a mean age of 48.15 ± 26.71 years). The procedures were 68.8 % therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE), 16.4 % leukocytapheresis, 11.5 % immunoadsorption (IA), 3.1 % double filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP), and 0.13 % erythrocyte exchange. The categorical indications included 60.41 % category I and category II, 28.12 % category III, and 1.04 % category IV. The most common indication was thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) (26.04 %). The procedure failure rate was 2.08 %. Patient-related adverse events were reported in 7.5 % of procedures. The case mortality rate was 16.66 %. TA utility rate was 0.98 % for the new indications in the ASFA 2016 guideline.
conclusionTherapeutic apheresis is a progressively developing, safe, and effective treatment modality with add-on indications. Physicians should keep track of new developments on this modality to implement the appropriate indications into clinical practice. HIPPOKRATIA 2018, 22(4): 167-172.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31695303PMC6825424W3005841774What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.