Unizentrische, retrospektive Analyse der praktischen Durchführung der extrakorporalen Photopherese

• Verfasst von: Hambsch, Jasmin [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Büttner, Sylvia [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Nicolay, Jan Peter [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Felcht, Moritz [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Booken, Nina [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Klemke, Claus-Detlev [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Unizentrische, retrospektive Analyse der praktischen Durchführung der extrakorporalen Photopherese
• Titelzusatz: periphervenöser und zentralvenöser Zugang im Vergleich
• Paralleltitel: Single-center retrospective analysis of extracorporal photopheresis in clinical practice
• Paralleltitelzusatz: peripheral venous compared to central venous access
• Verf.angabe: Jasmin Hambsch, Sylvia Büttner, Markus Heck, Jan P. Nicolay, Moritz Felcht, Nina Booken, Claus-Detlev Klemke
• E-Jahr: 2019
• Jahr: 9. Januar 2019
• Umfang: 11 S.
• Fussnoten: Gesehen am 14.05.2019
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Der Hautarzt
• Ort Quelle: Berlin : Springer, 1994
• Jahr Quelle: 2019
• Band/Heft Quelle: 70(2019), 3, Seite 193-203
• ISSN Quelle: 1432-1173
• DOI: doi:10.1007/s00105-018-4327-y
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: ger
• Sach-SW: Complications
• Sach-SW: Cutaneous T‑cell-lymphoma
• Sach-SW: Graft versus host disease
• Sach-SW: Graft-versus-Host-Erkrankung
• Sach-SW: Komplikationen
• Sach-SW: Kutanes T‑Zell-Lymphom
• Sach-SW: Nebenwirkungen
• Sach-SW: Side effects
• Sach-SW: Venöser Zugang
• Sach-SW: Venous access
• K10plus-PPN: 1665364262

Abstract

BackgroundExtracorporal photopheresis (ECP) was shown to be effective without severe side effects in the treatment of cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL) and graft versus host disease (GvHD). However, only few studies investigated the practical aspects of ECP.MethodsTreatment protocols of 2038 ECP procedures in 52 patients (CTCL, n = 29; GvHD, n = 15; other, n = 8) were evaluated. The patients were treated with the UVAR® XTS™ ECP system (Therakos, Inc. Johnson & Johnson, Raritan, NJ, USA) between 2001 and 2010. All patients started with a peripheral venous access. During the course of treatment 7 patients were treated via a port and 4 via a central venous catheter.ResultsIn all, 1765 (86.6%) treatments were performed with a peripheral venous access; 239 (11.7%) ECPs were done via a port and 34 (1.7%) via a central venous catheter. The peripheral venous access showed a higher flow rate and longer photoactivation time. ECPs via port lead to higher UV-irradiated volumes, longer treatment times and higher differences in systolic blood pressure. The following side effects were observed: being unwell (n = 13), hypo- (n = 13) and hypertension (n = 7), vertigo (n = 4), headache (n = 4), shortness of breath (n = 4), fever (n = 3) and metallic taste (n = 3). Technical complications such as problems with venous access (9.6%) occurred in 385 (18.9%) treatments.ConclusionsPeripheral venous access should be preferred for ECP treatments.