4.4 Article

Splenectomy as a curative treatment for immune thrombocytopenia: a retrospective analysis of 233 patients with a minimum follow up of 10 years

Journal

HAEMATOLOGICA
Volume 98, Issue 6, Pages 875-880

Publisher

FERRATA STORTI FOUNDATION
DOI: 10.3324/haematol.2012.075648

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The treatment of choice in steroid-resistant immune thrombocytopenia is still controversial due to the recent advent of new drugs (anti-CD20 antibodies and thrombopoietin mimetics) that have encouraged a generalized tendency to delay splenectomy. Consequently, it is extremely importance to define the efficacy and safety of splenectomy in the long term. We retrospectively analyzed the data of 233 patients affected by immune thrombocytopenia who underwent splenectomy between 1959 and 2001 in 6 European hematologic institutions and who have now a minimum follow up of ten years from surgery. Of the 233 patients, 180 (77%) achieved a complete response and 26 (11%) a response. Sixty-eight of 206 (33%) responsive patients relapsed, mostly (75%) within four years from first response. In 92 patients (39.5%), further treatment was required after splenectomy that was effective in 76 cases (83%). In 138 patients (59%), response was maintained free of any treatment at last contact. No significant association between baseline characteristics and likelihood of stable response was found. Overall, 73 (31%) and 58 (25%) patients experienced at least one infectious or hemorrhagic complication, which was fatal in 2 and 3 patients, respectively. A stable response to splenectomy was associated with a lower rate of infections (P=0.004) and hemorrhages (P<0.0001). Thrombosis developed in 18 patients (8%) and was fatal in 4. Splenectomy achieved a long-term stable response in approximately 60% of cases. Complications mainly affected non-responding patients and were fatal in a minority.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available