4.2 Article

Long-term results of splenectomy in adult chronic immune thrombocytopenia

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY
Volume 98, Issue 3, Pages 235-241

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ejh.12821

Keywords

splenectomy; immune thrombocytopenia; chronic; adult

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81270581, 81300385, 81470286]
  2. Tianjin Municipal Science and Technology Commission [14JCZDJC35100]
  3. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20131106120039]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectivesWe performed this study in adult patients with chronic primary immune thrombocytopenia to explore the long-term efficacy and safety of splenectomy. MethodsData of 174 patients who underwent splenectomy in our hospital from 1994 to 2014 were analyzed. ResultsAfter splenectomy, 126 (72.4%) patients achieved a complete response (CR) and 28 (16.1%) achieved a response (R). Thirty-two (20.8%) responders relapsed with a median time of 24 months. Compared with non-responders and recurrent patients, the stable responders were younger and had higher preoperation and postoperation peak platelet count, later peak platelet count emergence time, and more megakaryocytes. Corticosteroid-dependent patients were more likely to response to splenectomy than those refractory to corticosteroid. We performed a relapse-free survival analysis among the 154 responders. In univariate analyses, corticosteroid dependent and time from diagnosis to splenectomy 24 months showed predictive value to persistent response. But only corticosteroid dependent was a significant predictor in multivariate analysis. The 30-d complication rate after the surgery was 25.9%. There were five (2.9%) patients experienced thrombosis and three (1.7%) refractory patients died during follow-up. ConclusionsSplenectomy was a safe treatment with a cure rate of 58.0%. Corticosteroid dependent showed predictive value to persistent response.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available