TY - JOUR
T1 - Midline catheters for extracorporeal photopheresis in hematological patients
AU - Marche, Bruno
AU - D'Arrigo, Sonia
AU - Annetta, Maria Giuseppina
AU - Musarò, Andrea
AU - Emoli, Alessandro
AU - Sica, Simona
AU - Piccirillo, Nicola
AU - Putzulu, Rossana
AU - De Paolis, Maria
AU - Bernoldi, Marco
AU - Pittiruti, Mauro
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Introduction: Peripheral venous access for extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) may be difficult in graft versus host disease (GVHD) patients, because of previous intravenous therapies and multiple peripheral cannulations; in this population of patients, ultrasound guided midline catheters may be an alternative option to central venous access. Methods: In this single-center, prospective preliminary study, we enrolled all consecutive patients with a diagnosis of GVHD and candidate to ECP, over a period of 10 months. We used inserted power injectable, non-valved, polyurethane, 20–25 cm single lumen midline catheters (MC). Results: Sixty-nine ECP procedures were carried out in six patients, using single-lumen MCs for outflow (5Fr in 74% and 4Fr in 26% of cases). For inflow, we used 5Fr or 4Fr MCs, or central venous access devices previously placed for other clinical reasons. There were no catheter-related complications during the entire period of ECP treatment. Mean outflow was significantly higher for 5Fr than for 4Fr MCs (35.8 ± 7.3 vs 29.2 ± 7.8 ml/min; p = 0.0008) and the procedure time was significantly shorter (92.9 ± 9.2 vs 108 ± 13.2 min; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: In GVHD patients, ECP can be performed efficiently and safely using single lumen polyurethane power injectable MCs. The best results are obtained with 5Fr rather than with 4Fr catheters. This strategy of venous access should be implemented in DIVA patients requiring ECP treatments, and probably also in other types of apheresis.
AB - Introduction: Peripheral venous access for extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) may be difficult in graft versus host disease (GVHD) patients, because of previous intravenous therapies and multiple peripheral cannulations; in this population of patients, ultrasound guided midline catheters may be an alternative option to central venous access. Methods: In this single-center, prospective preliminary study, we enrolled all consecutive patients with a diagnosis of GVHD and candidate to ECP, over a period of 10 months. We used inserted power injectable, non-valved, polyurethane, 20–25 cm single lumen midline catheters (MC). Results: Sixty-nine ECP procedures were carried out in six patients, using single-lumen MCs for outflow (5Fr in 74% and 4Fr in 26% of cases). For inflow, we used 5Fr or 4Fr MCs, or central venous access devices previously placed for other clinical reasons. There were no catheter-related complications during the entire period of ECP treatment. Mean outflow was significantly higher for 5Fr than for 4Fr MCs (35.8 ± 7.3 vs 29.2 ± 7.8 ml/min; p = 0.0008) and the procedure time was significantly shorter (92.9 ± 9.2 vs 108 ± 13.2 min; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: In GVHD patients, ECP can be performed efficiently and safely using single lumen polyurethane power injectable MCs. The best results are obtained with 5Fr rather than with 4Fr catheters. This strategy of venous access should be implemented in DIVA patients requiring ECP treatments, and probably also in other types of apheresis.
KW - difficult venous access
KW - extracorporeal photopheresis
KW - ultrasound-guided
KW - Midline catheter
KW - graft versus host disease
KW - difficult venous access
KW - extracorporeal photopheresis
KW - ultrasound-guided
KW - Midline catheter
KW - graft versus host disease
UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10807/239897
U2 - 10.1177/11297298211041450
DO - 10.1177/11297298211041450
M3 - Article
SN - 1129-7298
SP - 11297298211041450-N/A
JO - Journal of Vascular Access
JF - Journal of Vascular Access
ER -