Efficacy of peripheral arterial access for peripheral blood stem cells collection

• Published in: Journal of clinical apheresis 2021-12, Vol.36 (6), p.864-869
• Main Authors: Tian, Min, Li, Xiangmin, Liu, Feng, Xu, Dongmei, Sun, Lanlan, Li, Qiuhuan, Ling, Yue, Bai, Yingxue, Wu, Xiaoling, Liu, Yun, Qiao, Jianhong
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Apheresis; Arteries; Blood; Blood diseases; Female; Hematologic Diseases - therapy; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; peripheral artery; Peripheral Blood Stem Cell Transplantation - methods; Peripheral Blood Stem Cells; Retrospective Studies; Stem cells; Treatment Outcome; vascular access; Veins; Venous access
• ISSN: 0733-2459; 1098-1101
• DOI: 10.1002/jca.21940

Background Transplantation of peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) mobilized by cytokines is increasingly applied to treat patients with hematologic diseases, such as lymphoma, multiple myeloma, leukemia, etc. Successful hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) increasingly depends on the collection of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) from peripheral blood. Peripheral vein (PV) is the most common type of blood access. When the blood vessels are not well filled and the blood flow is insufficient, the machine will appear repeated low pressure alarm or pipeline coagulation, which seriously affects the collection efficiency. A peripheral artery (PA) is utilized for drawing blood, while a peripheral vein is used for blood return, that is a way to perform apheresis. The advantages of PA are that it ensures adequate extracorporeal circulation blood flow, stable blood flow rate, simple operation, and relatively low price. However, there are very few studies on the efficacy of peripheral arterial access for HSCs collection. Therefore, this retrospective study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of PA and PV access for PBSCs collection. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of 150 apheresis procedures on 26 patients and 95 healthy donors collected by PV or PA access from March 1, 2020 to March 1, 2021. We compared the CD34+ cell count, collection efficiency (CE), duration of processing a single blood volume, number of low‐pressure alarms, average blood flow rate and number of punctures between the two groups. Also, we analyzed adverse events. Results There was no significant difference in the quality of apheresis blood components between the PA group and the PV group. The CD34+ cells collected was 274.16 ± 216.31 × 106 in the PV group and 246.63 ± 127.94 × 106 in the PA group. The CE in the PA group was 49.50 ± 9.88%, higher than 42.39 ± 14.62% in the PV group. The duration of processing a single blood volume was 90.67 ± 15.35 min in the PV group and 79.68 ± 10.28 min in the PA group. The number of low‐pressure alarms in the PA group was 0.38 ± 0.98,