ArticleMemo2022
Systemic capillary leak syndrome following granulocyte colony-stimulating factor therapy in a T-lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma patient: a case report.
Article in Memo, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Systemic capillary leak syndrome (SCLS) is a rare and often fatal clinical entity used to describe a generalized increase in vascular permeability leading to fluid extravasation toward the interstitial compartment. SCLS could be an idiopathic disease or secondary to infections, malignancies or drugs. Case: We present a case of presumably granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-induced SCLS in a 21-year-old man diagnosed with T‑lymphoblastic leukemia/lymphoma. He received the 6th cycle (part B) of the hyper-CVAD chemotherapeutic regimen followed by the initiation of neutropenic fever prophylaxis protocol which included antibiotics and G‑CSF. In a course of hours, the patient became dyspneic, hypotensive, and edematous which required intensive care unit admission and was stabilized accordingly. In the following days the patient's anasarca progressively increased which was associated with hypoalbuminemia, hypotension and anemia with pericardial and bilateral plural effusions. As a diagnosis of exclusion augmented by the acuity of such clinical event, observed concomitantly with the administration of the prophylaxis protocol, the suspicion of G‑CSF-induced SCLS was established. Consequently, G‑CSF was discontinued and treatment with dexamethasone and intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) was started. The patient's condition improved significantly illustrated by hemodynamic stability in addition to improvement regarding the anasarca, hypoalbuminemia, and anemia. Follow-up scans suggest resolution of the pericardial and plural effusions. Conclusion: SCLS remains a serios and potentially fatal complication of G‑CSF administration which should be taken into consideration, since such medication is widely utilized in oncology wards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.