4.2 Review

Therapeutic plasma exchange and intravenous immune globulin in the treatment ofheparin-inducedthrombocytopenia: A systematic review

期刊

TRANSFUSION
卷 60, 期 11, 页码 2714-2736

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/trf.16018

关键词

-

资金

  1. Hemostasis and Thrombosis Research Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Immunomodulatory strategies in heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) include the use of intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) and therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE). The optimal application of these therapies is unknown and outcomes data are limited. We investigated treatment categories and laboratory and clinical outcomes of IVIG and/or TPE in HIT with a systematic literature review. Study Design and Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science through December 2019 for studies combining controlled vocabulary and keywords related to thrombocytopenia, heparin, TPE, and IVIG. The primary outcome was treatment indication. Secondary outcomes were platelet recovery, HIT laboratory parameters, heparin re-exposure, and post-treatment course. Case-level data were analyzed by qualitative synthesis. Results After 4241 references were screened, we identified 60 studies with four main categories of IVIG and/or TPE use as follows: (a) treatment of refractory HIT (n = 35; 31%); (b) initial therapy (n = 45; 40%); (c) cardiopulmonary bypass surgery (CPB; n = 30; 27%); and (d) other (n = 2; 2%). IVIG was most commonly used for the treatment of refractory HIT while TPE was primarily used to facilitate heparin exposure during CPB. Both IVIG and TPE were equally used as initial therapy. Heparin re-exposure occurred without thrombotic event in 29 TPE-treated patients and three IVIG-treated patients. Conclusion In patients with HIT, both TPE and IVIG are used for initial therapy or treatment of refractory HIT. However, TPE is more commonly used in patients undergoing CPB. Prospective studies may help clarify which treatment is indicated in HIT population subsets.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据