4.0 Article

Therapeutic plasma exchange in the pediatric intensive care unit: A single-center 5-Year experience

期刊

TRANSFUSION AND APHERESIS SCIENCE
卷 59, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.transci.2020.102959

关键词

Therapeutic plasma exchange; Pediatric intensive care; Indications; Complications

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study is to characterize clinical indications, safety and outcome with the use of TPE in critically ill children. All TPE procedures performed in a tertiary pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) during a 5 year period were retrospectively evaluated. A total of 75 patients underwent 249 sessions of TPE. Sepsis-induced multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS) was the most common indication with 29.3 %. American Society for Apheresis classifications were as follows: Category I: 24 %, Category II: 16 %, Category III: 45.3 % and Category IV: 4%, while 10.7 % of the patients could not be classified. TPE was performed without any adjunct procedures in 188 sessions (75.5 %), while it was combined with continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in 49 sessions (19.7 %) and with CRRT and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in 12 (4.8 %) sessions. Overall survival rate was 73.3 %. The survival rate in patients requiring only TPE was 86.5 %, while the survival rates of patients who had CRRT and ECMO were 45 % and 33.3 %, respectively. Complications associated with the procedure occurred in 48 (19.2 %) TPE sessions. The lowest survival rate (31.9 %) was in patients with sepsis-induced MODS. Finally, we also found significantly higher organ failure rate, mechanical ventilation requirement, and PRISM III score at PICU admission in non-survivors. Our experience indicates that TPE can be performed relatively safely in critically ill children with appropriate treatment indications. Survival rate may vary depending on the underlying disease; however, it must be noted that survival rate is very high in children requiring TPE only.

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

4.0
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