The world apheresis association registry, 2023 update.

The WAA apheresis registry contains data on more than 140,000 apheresis procedures conducted in 12 different countries. The aim is to give an update of indications, type and number of procedures and adverse events (AEs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The WAA-registry is used for registration of apheresis procedures and is free of charge. The responsible person for a center can apply at the site www.waa-registry.org RESULTS: Data includes reported AEs from 2012 and various procedures and diagnoses during the years 2018-2022; the latter in total from 27 centers registered a total of 9500 patients (41% women) that began therapeutic apheresis (TA) during the period. A total of 58,355 apheresis procedures were performed. The mean age was 50 years (range 0-94). The most common apheresis procedure was stem cell collection for which multiple myeloma was the most frequent diagnosis (51%). Donor cell collection was done in 14% and plasma exchange (PEX) in 28% of patients; In relation to all performed procedures PEX, using a centrifuge (35%) and LDL-apheresis (20%) were the most common. The main indication for PEX was TTP (17%). Peripheral veins were used in 56% as the vascular access. The preferred anticoagulant was ACD. AEs occurred in 2.7% of all procedures and were mostly mild (1%) and moderate 1.5% (needed supportive medication) and, only rarely, severe (0.15%). CONCLUSION: The data showed a wide range of indications and variability in apheresis procedures with low AE frequency.

Using the World Apheresis Association Registry Helps to Improve the Treatment Quality of Therapeutic Apheresis.

Therapeutic apheresis (TA) is prescribed to patients that suffer from a severe progressive disease that is not sufficiently treated by conventional medications. A way to gain more knowledge about this treatment is usually by the local analysis of data. However, the use of large quality assessment registries enables analyses of even rare findings. Here, we report some of the recent data from the World Apheresis Association (WAA) registry. Data from >104,000 procedures were documented, and TA was performed on >15,000 patients. The main indication for TA was the collection of autologous stem cells (45% of patients) as part of therapy for therapy. Collection of stem cells from donors for allogeneic transplantation was performed in 11% of patients. Patients with indications such as neurological diseases underwent plasma exchange (28%). Extracorporeal photochemotherapy, lipid apheresis, and antibody removal were other indications. Side effects recorded in the registry have decreased significantly over the years, with approximately only 10/10,000 procedures being interrupted for medical reasons. CONCLUSION: Collection of data from TA procedures within a multinational and multicenter concept facilitates the improvement of treatment by enabling the analysis of and feedback on indications, procedures, effects, and side effects.

PBPC collections: Management, techniques and risks.

We evaluated the efficiency, safety and risks of three techniques which were used for autologous PBPC collections: (a) large-volume leukapheresis (LVL), (b) standard collections, and (c) a new modified technique which was named as "Mixed" collections. In spite of the fact that the standard and LVL collection techniques are used routinely, there may occur special conditions in which the procedures cannot be recommended. Some patients may suffer from serious clinical complications and they cannot tolerate either standard procedures with administration of higher doses of ACD-A, or the high extent of procedure in the course of LVL. We tried to find the safe and efficient collection technique which could help this group of patients to overcome their problems. The "Mixed" collection technique could be such a choice. The numbers of 136 autologous PBPC collections were performed in 98 patients who suffered from hemato-oncological diseases. We evaluated the results of (a) 93 LVL (more than 3 TBV, total blood volumes of the patients were processed; anticoagulation: ACD-A and Heparin), (b) 16 Standard procedures (less than 3 TBV were processed; anticoagulation: ACD-A), and (c) 27 "Mixed" collections (less than 3 TBV of patients were processed; anticoagulation: ACD-A+ Heparin). Collections were performed by the use of separator Cobe Spectra, Caridian. In patients (a) with a good effect of mobilization (precollection CD 34+ cells in blood higher than 20×10(3)/mL) we prepared almost the same median dose of CD 34+ cells from the standard and "Mixed" collections, 3.8 and 4×10(6)/kg, respectively. In LVL the median yield of CD 34+ cells was 8.2×10(6)/kg. In patients (b) who were mobilized weakly (precollection CD 34+ cells in blood lower than 20×10(3)/mL), LVL enabled to prepare 1.5×10(6) of CD 34+/kg from one collection, while the median yield of CD 34+ cells from the standard and "Mixed" collections was 0.9 and 1.2×10(6)/kg. All the standard, LVL and "Mixed" procedures were tolerated well without any serious adverse reactions. We detected 22 adverse reactions, but only three reactions were associated directly with the procedure. Mild hypocalcemia (2) and hypotensive reaction (1) were transient and treated efficiently. Procedures could continue and were finished according to the planned programme. Other reactions were related either to the insufficient function of central venous catheter or to the poor clinical condition of the patients. LVL enabled to get a higher yield of CD 34+ cells than the Standard and "Mixed" collections in well mobilized patients as well as in weakly mobilized patients. We observed the similar efficiency in standard and "Mixed" collections in well mobilized and weakly mobilized patients. We can recommend LVL in all patients who can tolerate it due to a greater chance of collecting higher yields of progenitor cells. In the weakly mobilized patients LVL offers a greater chance of collecting at least a minimum amount of CD 34+ cells needed for transplantation. "Mixed" collections may be used as an alternative technique under the circumstances in which standard or LVL cannot be recommended - like in patients who do not tolerate a high amount of citrate or a high extent of the procedure, e.g. patients with cardiac arrhytmia, impaired liver or renal function or unstable vital signs.