ArticleJournal of clinical apheresis2022
Comparison of procedure times and collection efficiencies using integrated and multistep nonintegrated procedures for extracorporeal photopheresis.
Article in Journal of clinical apheresis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extracorporeal Photopheresis with 5-Aminolevulinic Acid in Crohn's Disease-A First-in-Human Phase I/II Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluating a New Photopheresis System: A Comparison with Two Established Systems on Cell Yield and Collection Efficiency.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Collection efficiency of mononuclear cells in offline extracorporeal photopheresis: can processing time be shortened?Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2024Article
- Comparison of procedure times and collection efficiencies using integrated and multistep nonintegrated procedures for extracorporeal photopheresis.Journal of clinical apheresis · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) is a blood-based therapeutic procedure increasingly used for modulation of immune dysregulation in various underlying disease settings. The aim of this study was to compare the procedure times and blood collection efficiencies between the two approaches currently utilized in European centers: the integrated versus the multistep nonintegrated procedures.
methodsA retrospective data analysis was conducted, comparing treatment data from patients who received ECP therapy at the Central Institute for Blood Transfusion & Department of Immunology (ZIB) of the Tirol Kliniken GmbH, where the integrated and multistep nonintegrated procedures are routinely used in an approximated setup.
resultsDuring the observation period, a total of 15 patients who were treated with alternating systems on 2 consecutive days were identified. This allowed treatment pair comparisons with minimal interpatient variabilities, similar to a cross-over design even though analyzed retrospectively. Total average procedure times with the integrated system were 99.3 vs 122.0 minutes with the multistep nonintegrated procedures, respectively. Significant differences were observed for all steps of the ECP procedure: (a) time for buffy coat collection, 66.5 vs 74.7; (b) handling/transfer, 2.8 vs 18.7; (c) irradiation, 20.3 vs 11.7; and (d) reinfusion/handling time, 9.6 vs 16.3 minutes. The calculated collection throughput was 7.79 mL/min for the integrated and 7.84 mL/min for the multistep nonintegrated procedures, and with a white blood cell (WBC) collection efficiency of 34.2% and 21.0%, respectively.
conclusionThe data presented in this study show a significant shorter overall procedure time and higher WBC collection efficiency for the integrated ECP system.
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.