Benefits and limitations of plasmapheresis in renal diseases: an evidence-based approach

Therapeutic plasma exchange in rheumatic diseases: a university hospital experience

INTRODUCTION

Each day, evidence accumulates related to the use of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) in patients with rheumatic diseases. San Ignacio University Hospital has recorded all of the TPE sessions performed by the institution's apheresis group.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the TPE experience of patients with rheumatologic diseases in a hospital setting.

METHODS

Descriptive, observational, retrospective analysis. This study included analyses of the TPE sessions that were performed in patients with rheumatic diseases from November 2009 to November 2013.

RESULTS

The apheresis group performed 136 sessions in 27 patients. The mean patient age was 43 years (SD 18.5), and 59.3% of the patients were female. Regarding the diagnosis, the most frequents ones where: ANCA-associated vasculitis followed by systemic lupus erythematosus and catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome. The average number of sessions per patient was 5 (SD 1.8), and the average plasma exchange per patient was 1.3 plasma volume replacement units. The most used replacement solution was frozen fresh plasma (FFP; 63.2% of the sessions). Of all the sessions, 4.4% presented complications, and the majority of the complications were related to vascular access. Fifteen patients required renal replacement therapy (RRT) secondary to the same cause that created the need for TPE, 3 patients required RRT due to causes other than the TPE diagnostic intervention and 1 patient had undergone chronic dialysis.

CONCLUSIONS

TPE is a therapeutic alternative that is needed for the management of patients with rheumatic diseases with renal involvement and those who are refractory to conventional management. Our clinical results were in agreement with the global literature.

Plasma exchange in the intensive care unit: a 10 year retrospective audit

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Plasma exchange (PE) is a therapeutic technique for the removal of illness-associated antibodies and toxins. Little is currently known about the prescription and technique for PE in the Intensive Care setting. In addition, different illnesses require specific PE regimens to optimise the clinical outcome for the patient. We sought to audit our use of PE for: number of treatments, clinical indications, treatments prescribed and administered, any procedural or patient complications, and adherence to current best practice recommendations.

METHOD

A retrospective audit involving all patients who were admitted to our tertiary 20 bed Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and received PE therapy between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2011. Data was collected from identified patient medical records using a specifically designed case report form.

RESULTS

Thirty unique patients were identified in this audit. There was an incidence of 0.15% use of PE during this period. Eighteen female patients (60%) were indentified, median age 59.5 (48-70) years. These 30 patients were prescribed 135 PE treatments, requiring 156 membranes in total with a 15.5% incidence of premature circuit clotting. Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (TTP) was the most common indication for PE (37%) with 10 other clinical indications. Median length of ICU admission was 9.5 (3-17) days. The PE regimens received by patients in this ICU were not always prescribed in accordance with current best practice recommendations. No patient complications were identified with these PE treatments.

CONCLUSION

PE is a valuable treatment option for critically ill patients suffering antibody-mediated illness. The findings of this audit have identified differences between the current prescription recommendations for PE and those applied. TTP was the most common indication for PE, and no patient complications were identified, however a 15.5% incidence of circuit clotting occurred. The infrequency of the therapy and the different indications present a challenge for Intensive Care clinicians to provide best care in all cases. Improving the prescription of PE through the implementation of a new protocol and clinical education may result in better outcomes for our patients.

Plasmapheresis in immunologic renal disease

Plasmapheresis has been used in the management of immunologic renal disease for the last 40 years. The rationale behind this approach is to remove pathogenic immune mediators, such as autoantibodies and immune complexes, from the circulation. There may also be benefit in depleting proinflammatory molecules, such as complement components and coagulation factors. Initial experience was gained in Goodpasture's disease, in which antiglomerular basement membrane antibodies were known to be pathogenic. More recently, a role for autoantibodies has become clear in small-vessel systemic vasculitis and some cases of hemolytic uremic syndrome/thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura. Removal of immune complexes is thought to be important in cryoglobulinemia and systemic lupus erythematosus. Plasmapheresis is used in renal transplantation for the treatment of acute antibody-mediated rejection, and for desensitization of patients with preformed anti-HLA antibodies or those receiving an ABO-incompatible transplant. Although many of the early studies were uncontrolled, there has been an increasing number of randomized controlled trials in recent years. The aim of this article is to summarize current indications for the use of plasmapheresis in immunologic renal disease.