Indwelling ports for prophylactic RBC exchanges in sickle cell patients: Comparison of bard and vortex ports

Comprehensive guide to managing a chronic automated red cell exchange program in sickle cell disease

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and limits both the quality and quantity of life. Transfusion therapy, specifically automated red cell exchange (aRCE), plays a key role in management of SCD and is beneficial for certain indications in the chronic, outpatient setting. The approach to maintain a successful chronic aRCE program for SCD is multifaceted. This review will highlight important considerations including indications for aRCE, patient selection, transfusion medicine pearls, vascular access needs, complications of therapy, aRCE prescription, and therapy optimization. Moreover, the importance of a multidisciplinary approach with frequent communication between the services involved cannot be overstated. Ultimately, the underlying goal of a chronic RCE program is to improve the quality of life and longevity of patients with SCD.

Strategies to Aid Identification of Apheresis PowerFlow Ports: A Case Report

INTRODUCTION

The PowerFlow implantable apheresis intravenous port is a venous access device for therapeutic apheresis procedures. In this case review article, we identify key similarities and differences between apheresis PowerFlow ports and traditional ports. We also list strategies that emergency departments can implement to aid in correct port identification.

METHODS

Using a case review format, we describe the clinical presentation of a 33-year-old female with neuromyelitis optica who was evaluated in the emergency department for an acute exacerbation. She had a history of outpatient apheresis procedures that made use of bilateral PowerFlow ports. Mistaken for a conventional port, the right PowerFlow port was accessed with a Huber needle rather than the appropriate catheter-over-needle device. On infusion of intravenous fluids, the patient experienced pain and swelling. Ultimately, the port malfunctioned and was eventually replaced.

RESULTS

A subsequent root cause analysis identified opportunities for education and aids to improve port identification. To this end, strategies were implemented to appropriately identify the PowerFlow port using at least 2 of the following methods: (1) look in the patient's chart for record of an implantable apheresis intravenous port; (2) check the port identification card, bracelet, or keychain issued at insertion; (3) palpate the port to look for the rounded top and hollow concave entry point; and (4) use x-ray or fluoroscopy to identify radiopaque port markers.

CONCLUSION

When a patient with a history of apheresis procedures presents with an implanted port, steps should be taken to ensure correct identification and access.

Use of dual lumen ports for red blood cell exchange: A comparison of adults and children with sickle cell disease

PURPOSE

Sickle cell patients receiving chronic RBC exchange require a form of long-term central venous access if peripheral access is inadequate. In adults, dual lumen (DL) ports have been utilized but associated with greater procedure complications and duration when compared to other forms of access. In the pediatric sickle cell population, the use of DL ports for RBC exchange has not been well described. In this retrospective cohort study, RBC exchange procedures utilizing DL ports in the pediatric vs adult sickle cell population were compared.

METHODS

Medical records were reviewed for 685 RBC exchange procedures performed on 25 patients (11 pediatric and 14 adult) between November 2014 to November 2018. Patient-level characteristics and outcomes were compared between pediatric and adult patients using the Fisher-exact and Wilcoxon-rank sum test. Linear/logistic regression models examined procedure-level parameters and port characteristics with adjustment for clustering.

RESULTS

Compared to adults, pediatric patients had slower average maximum inlet speed (42 vs 53 mL/min, P < .01), but shorter procedure time (60 vs 75 minutes, P < .01) and lower rate of access alarms (1% vs 11%, P < .01). Overall, 0.29 thrombotic events per 1000 port days and 0.04 infections per 1000 port days were observed.

CONCLUSION

For adult and pediatric sickle cell patients, a DL port provides a viable option for RBC exchange. In comparison to adults, pediatric procedures with a DL port will typically be shorter and with less procedural complications due to smaller blood volumes and lower flow requirements.