Membrane-based therapeutic plasma exchange in tertiary care ICU: demographic characteristics and predictors of complications
- PMID: 38046847
- PMCID: PMC10692618
- DOI: 10.51893/2022.1.OA6
Membrane-based therapeutic plasma exchange in tertiary care ICU: demographic characteristics and predictors of complications
Abstract
Introduction: Membrane-based therapeutic plasma exchange (mTPE) has been used to treat various diseases in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. However, there is a lack of clinical data regarding the practice of mTPE from Australian ICUs. Objectives: To determine factors contributing to complications in patients undergoing mTPE in the ICU. Methods: Prospectively collected data for mTPE procedures performed at the ICU of Flinders Medical Centre between April 2014 and December 2020 were analysed. Results: During the study period, 674 mTPE treatments were performed in 140 patients (71 females, 50.7%). Haematological disease (30.4%) was the most common indication for mTPE treatment. Citrate was the most common anticoagulation for mTPE (86.1%), while albumin (42.3%) was the most common replacement fluid. Circuit complications occurred in 18.6% of the total mTPE treatments. On logistical regression analysis, treatment ionised calcium level (odds ratio [OR], 42.2; 95% CI, 1.8-975.0; P = 0.02), male sex (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.04-4; P = 0.04), duration of mTPE treatment (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02; P < 0.001) and diagnostic categories (P = 0.03) were predictors of circuit complications. During mTPE treatment, 87.2% of patients did not experience any complications. On logistical regression analysis, replacement fluid type (P = 0.03), lower initial blood flow (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.9-1.0; P = 0.04) and higher exchange volume (OR, 8.9; 95% CI, 1.6-48.7; P = 0.01) were predictors of patient complications. Conclusion: During mTPE, pre-treatment ionised calcium level, male sex, duration of mTPE and diagnostic categories were predictors of circuit complications, while replacement fluid type, initial blood flow and higher exchange volume were predictors of patient complications.
© 2022 College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand.
Conflict of interest statement
All authors declare that they do not have any potential conflict of interest in relation to this manuscript.
Figures
References
-
- Yilmaz A.A., Can O.S., Oral M., et al. Therapeutic plasma exchange in an intensive care unit (ICU): a 10-year, singlecenter experience. Transfus Apher Sci. 2011;45:161–166. - PubMed
-
- Paton E., Baldwin I.C. Plasma exchange in the intensive care unit: a 10-year retrospective audit. Aust Crit Care. 2014;27:139–144. - PubMed
-
- Lemaire A., Parquet N., Galicier L., et al. Plasma exchange in the intensive care unit: Technical aspects and complications. J Clin Apher. 2017;32:405–412. - PubMed
-
- Calça R., Gaspar A., Santos A., et al. Therapeutic plasma exchange in patients in a Portuguese ICU. Port J Nephrol Hypert. 2020;34:67–71.
-
- Szczeklik W., Wawrzycka K., Włudarczyk A., et al. Complications in patients treated with plasmapheresis in the intensive care unit. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2013;45:7–13. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous