Plasma adsorption in critical care

Use of Therapeutic Apheresis methods in ICU

Apheresis is a modern medical approach in which plasma or cellular components are separated from the whole blood. Apheresis can be either diagnostic or therapeutic. Diagnostic apheresis is typically applied in hematology and cancer research. Therapeutic Apheresis (TA) includes a broad spectrum of extracorporeal treatments applied in various medical specialties, including Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Considering the complexity of the pathophysiologic characteristics of various clinical entities and in particular sepsis, apheresis methods are becoming increasingly applicable. Therapeutic Plasma Exchange (TPE) is the most common used method in ICU. It is considered as first line therapy for Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (TTP) and Guillain Barre Syndrome, while the current data for sepsis are scarce. Over the last decades, technologic evolution has led to increasing application of new and more selective methods based on adsorptive techniques. In this review we will describe the current data of characteristics of different techniques, safety and clinical impact of apheresis methods used in ICUs.

Clinical approach to mechanical circulatory support in the transplant patient from the Pediatric Heart Transplant Society

The use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) for pediatric patients who have undergone heart transplant has grown rapidly in the past decade. This includes support in the immediate post-transplant period and "rescue" therapy for patient later in their transplant course. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) remains a standard modality of support for intraoperative concerns and for acute decompensation in the immediate post-transplant period. However, both pulsatile and continuous flow ventricular assist devices (VADs) have been used with increasing success in transplant patients for longer durations of support. Centers participating in the Pediatric Heart Transplant Society (PHTS) were queried to provide their internal protocols and rationale for mechanical circulatory support following heart transplant. These protocols coupled with evidence-based literature were used to provide the following description of clinical approaches to MCS in the transplant patient highlighting areas of both broad consensus and significant practice variation.

Sensitization in Heart Transplantation: Emerging Knowledge: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Sensitization, defined as the presence of circulating antibodies, presents challenges for heart transplant recipients and physicians. When present, sensitization can limit a transplantation candidate’s access to organs, prolong wait time, and, in some cases, exclude the candidate from heart transplantation altogether. The management of sensitization is not yet standardized, and current therapies have not yielded consistent results. Although current strategies involve antibody suppression and removal with intravenous immunoglobulin, plasmapheresis, and antibody therapy, newer strategies with more specific targets are being investigated.

Use of Cellular and Plasma Apheresis in the Critically Ill Patient: Part II: Clinical Indications and Applications

Apheresis is the process of separating the blood and removing or manipulating a cellular or plasma component for therapeutic benefit. Such procedures may be indicated in the critical care setting as primary or adjunctive therapy for certain hematologic, neurologic, renal, and autoimmune/rheumatologic disorders. In part I of this series, the technical aspects of apheresis were described and the physiologic rationale and clinical considerations were discussed. This review highlights the pathophysiologic basis, specific clinical indications, and treatment parameters for disorders that more commonly require management in the intensive care unit. The choice of plasma or cellular apheresis in these cases is guided by wellaccepted, evidence-based clinical treatment guidelines. For some disorders, such as liver failure, severe sepsis, and multiple-organ dysfunction syndrome, apheresis treatment approaches remain experimental. Ongoing studies are investigating the potential utility of conventional plasma exchange, ex vivo plasma manipulation, and newer technologies for these and other disorders in severely ill patients.

Use of Cellular and Plasma Apheresis in the Critically Ill Patient: Part 1: Technical and Physiological Considerations

Apheresis is the process of separating the blood and removing or manipulating a cellular or plasma component for therapeutic benefit. An apheresis procedure, or series of procedures, may be indicated in the critical care setting as primary or adjunctive therapy for certain hematologic, neurologic, renal, and autoimmune/ rheumatologic disorders. Optimal management of severely ill patients undergoing apheresis requires a working knowledge of the technical, methodological, and therapeutic considerations. These considerations include instrument hardware and separation methods, vascular access requirements, hemodynamic and hemostatic effects of the procedures, exposure to anticoagulants and homologous blood products, physiological variables affecting blood/plasma processing efficiency, and therapeutic endpoints for specific indications. Part 1 of this review will discuss each of those technological considerations and the basic physiological principles that guide this form of therapy. Part 2 of this series will deal with the clinical indications and applications for specific disorders that are most likely to affect patients in the intensive care unit.

Efficacy of plasma exchange and immunoadsorption in systemic lupus erythematosus and antiphospholipid syndrome: A systematic review

Extracorporeal treatments have been used since the 1970s in the management of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). A randomised controlled trial comparing the efficacy of standard of care (SOC) combined with plasma exchange against SOC alone in patients with lupus nephritis revealed no difference in terms of renal outcome. Subsequently, initial expectations have been dampened and further experience with plasma exchange is mainly limited to observational studies and single case reports. Beneficial effects have been reported in patients with refractory disease course or in pregnancy with prior complications due to SLE and antiphospholipid syndrome. A more specific form of extracorporeal treatment, immunoadsorption (IAS), has emerged as a valuable option in the treatment of SLE. In line with the plasma exchange experience, IAS seems to have beneficial effects in patients with refractory disease, contraindications to standard immunosuppression or during pregnancy. The mechanism IAS relates to autoantibody removal but for plasma exchange removal of activated complement components, coagulation factors, cytokines and microparticles may also be relevant. Both treatment forms have good safety profiles although reactions to blood product replacement in plasma exchange and procedure related complications such as bleeding or catheter-related infections have occurred. There is a need to more clearly define the clinical utility of plasma exchange and IAS in refractory lupus and APS subgroups.

Antibody-mediated rejection: treatment alternatives and outcomes

Over the past 10 years, thanks to the development of sensitive methods of antibody detection and markers of antibody injury such as C4d staining, the role of anti-human leukocyte antigen (HLA) and non-HLA alloantibodies as effectors of acute and chronic immune allograft injury has been revisited. Antibody-mediated rejection (AMR) defines all allograft rejection caused by antibodies directed against donor-specific HLA molecules, blood group antigen (ABO)-isoagglutinins, or endothelial cell antigens. Antibody-mediated rejection can be a recalcitrant process, resistant to therapy and carries an ominous prognosis to the graft. In concordance with these views, treatment protocols for AMR use permutations of a multiple-prong approach that include (1) the suppression of the T-cell dependent antibody response, (2) the removal of donor reactive antibody, (3) the blockade of the residual alloantibody, and (4) the depletion of naive and memory B-cells. Although all published protocols report a variable rate of success, a major weakness of all current protocols is the lack of effective anti-plasma cell agents. In comparison to acute AMR, the treatment for chronic AMR (CAMR) is not well characterized. Although in acute AMR large titers of pre-existent alloantibodies result in massive activation of the complement system and lytic injury of the graft endothelium, thereby requiring aggressive and fast removal of the offending agents, in CAMR, complement activation results in sublytic endothelial cell injury and activation. Although this type of injury results in chronic graft failure, its slow progression likely renders it amenable of suppression by heightening of maintenance immunosuppression and anti-idiotypic blockade of the circulating alloantibody without the need of plasma exchange. In this review, we will discuss the rationale behind the design of treatment protocols for acute AMR and CAMR as well as their reported results and complications.

Assessing the in vitro biocompatibility of a novel carbon device for the treatment of sepsis

The aim of the present study was to conduct a preliminary investigation into the blood biocompatibility of a novel, uncoated carbon for use in a filtration/adsorption device for the treatment of sepsis. Carbon well prototypes were manufactured from phenol-formaldehyde-aniline-based pyrolysed carbons using monolithic polymer technology. Inflammatory blood cell and plasma protein mediation of the inflammatory response were evaluated using the novel carbon prototypes and compared with dialyser membrane and tissue culture plate controls. Assays determining monocyte and granulocyte adhesion, platelet adhesion and activation, granulocyte activation and complement activation were performed. Preliminary findings suggest an adsorptive but passivating carbon surface. Moderate levels of monocyte and granulocytes adhesion were seen in conjunction with adsorption of plasma proteins to the carbon surface. Activation of granulocyte and adherent platelets was not detected and the complement cascade was not activated by the carbons, indicating a surface compatible with blood contact. The results support the further development of the proposed carbon-based device for the treatment of sepsis.

Factors influencing outcome in Guillain–Barré Syndrome: comparison of plasma adsorption against other treatments

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed to evaluate which factors influence the outcome of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS), focusing on the choice of treatments.

METHODS

Sixty-three GBS patients were retrospectively studied and the following factors were evaluated: sex, age, days from onset of disease to the start of treatment, severity of symptoms, prior infection, autonomic dysfunction, bulbar palsy, anti-ganglioside antibody, and disease form, as well as the choice of treatment. Plasma adsorption (PA, n=39), plasma exchange (PE, n=14), or immunoglobulin treatment (IVIg, n=10) were performed in this study. Outcomes were evaluated using the functional grading scale (FGS) of Hughes.

RESULTS

The number of days needed for one functional grade improvement was significantly longer in the elderly, the severe symptom group, and patients with acute motor axonal form, and days needed for two functional grade improvement was significantly longer in the elderly, patients with autonomic dysfunction, and acute motor axonal form. The choice of treatments (PA, PE, or IVIg) did not significantly influence the outcome as determined by both univariate and multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSION

Although patient age, symptoms, and disease form influenced the outcome, treatment methods did not significantly influence the outcome. Since PA does not result in a risk of unknown infection, choosing a PA treatment may be justified, especially for patients (or doctors) who may be anxious about a possibility of unknown infection.

Tryptophan-immobilized Column-based Immunoadsorption as the Choice Method for Plasmapheresis in Guillain-Barre Syndrome

Plasmapheresis is widely performed as treatment for patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in the acute phase. As tryptophan-immobilized column-based immunoadsorption (Tr-IA) is a safer method than either double-filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) or plasma exchange (PE), we investigated whether or not Tr-IA is as effective as other methods, and should be selected as the procedure of choice in patients with GBS. We retrospectively compared clinical outcomes, using Hughes grading, in GBS patients treated with Tr-IA, DFPP or PE. The outcome in the Tr-IA group was also compared historically with patients treated by PE in seven previous studies. We studied 34 patients with GBS: 20 were treated with Tr-IA, 11 with DFPP, and 3 with PE. The age, sex, duration from onset to initiation of treatment, and Hughes grade at entry did not differ among the Tr-IA, DFPP and PE groups. There was no significant difference in outcomes among these three groups, nor was there a significant difference between the outcomes in the Tr-IA and DFPP groups with respect to subgroups of Hughes grade at entry. Also, our Tr-IA group did not show a different outcome from the previously reported patients treated with PE. The frequency of complications in our Tr-IA group is significantly lower than that in both our DFPP group, and in the previously reported cases of patients treated with PE. Tr-IA, DFPP and PE have almost the same efficacy in patients with GBS, but Tr-IA is recommended as the plasmapheresis method of choice because of its safety.