ArticleHematology, transfusion and cell therapy2024
Performance and safety of therapeutic erythrocytapheresis in polycythemia and hemochromatosis treatment: single centre experience.
Article in Hematology, transfusion and cell therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTherapeutic erythrocytapheresis has some advantages over therapeutic phlebotomy, the standard treatment for cytoreduction in polycythemia and hemochromatosis. Erythrocytapheresis can be performed on different cell separators, each with its own characteristics. We present our experience of therapeutic erythrocytapheresis in the treatment of polycythemia and hemochromatosis with an analysis of the performance of cytoreduction, and a comparison between the characteristics of intermittent- and continuous-flow cell separators. MATERIAL AND
methodsDuring a 20-year period, 1731 procedures were performed in 125 patients, 1634 (94.4%) with a Haemonetics MCS+ separator and 97 (5.6%) with a Spectra Optia system device. The performance of cytoreduction using the Haemonetics MCS+ separator was analysed in 442 procedures performed in 56 patients and the performance of the two apheresis devices was compared.
resultsHaemoglobin (Hb) and haematocrit (Hct) values were significantly reduced after erythrocytapheresis with the Haemonetics MCS+ device (Hb: 18.69%; Hct: 18.73%; p-values both <0.001). The reductions of Hb and Hct were significantly higher in the Haemonetics MCS+ procedure (p-value <0.001), but the Spectra Optia procedure depleted a significantly higher RBC volume (495 mL versus 442 mL) in a shorter time (18 min versus 36 min).
conclusionBoth the Haemonetics MCS+ and Spectra Optia systems proved to be highly efficient and safe in RBC cytoreduction with short procedure times. Erythrocytapheresis reduces the frequency of necessary procedures thereby justifying its therapeutic use especially in eligible patients of working age.
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.