PBPC collections: Management, techniques and risks

Abstract

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.