EJHaem · 2026
Ultrasound-Guided Peripheral Venous Catheter for Automated Erythrocytapheresis in a Paediatric Population Affected by Sickle Cell Disease.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ocello Laura, Pavan Fabio, Ferrari Giulia M, Guerra Fabiola, Moretto Alessandra, Tassistro Elena, Valsecchi Maria G, Lepri Irene, Gregorio Linda, Passoni Alice, Balduzzi Adriana, Baldini Valentina, Corti Paola
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Automated erythrocytapheresis (aEEX) is an effective therapy for severe sickle cell disease (SCD). Its use in paediatrics can be limited by challenges in obtaining reliable venous access.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, single-centre study to evaluate the safety and feasibility of ultrasound (US)-guided peripheral venous catheter (PVC) placement for aEEX compared with central venous catheter (CVC) use in children and adolescents with SCD.
RESULTS: Between May 2018 and July 2025, 99 aEEX procedures using PVC were compared with 44 using CVC in 23 patients (median age: 16.4 years). The most frequent indication was severe disease phenotype (62.9%), defined as recurrent vaso-occlusive crises and/or splenic sequestration and/or acute chest syndrome despite optimal hydroxyurea therapy. The procedure success rate was 99.0% for PVC and 97.7% for CVC, with median post-apheresis HbS of 26.5% and 24.0%, respectively. Complications, mostly transient and without clinical impact, occurred in 9.1% of PVC procedures and 6.8% of CVC procedures. No infectious or and thrombotic events were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that aEEX under light sedation with US-guided PVC placement is a safe, well-tolerated and effective alternative to CVC in selected paediatric patients with SCD. This approach may expand access to aEEX reducing reliance on CVC and manual exchange procedures.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The authors have confirmed clinical trial registration is not needed for this submission.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, single-centre study to evaluate the safety and feasibility of ultrasound (US)-guided peripheral venous catheter (PVC) placement for aEEX compared with central venous catheter (CVC) use in children and adolescents with SCD.
RESULTS: Between May 2018 and July 2025, 99 aEEX procedures using PVC were compared with 44 using CVC in 23 patients (median age: 16.4 years). The most frequent indication was severe disease phenotype (62.9%), defined as recurrent vaso-occlusive crises and/or splenic sequestration and/or acute chest syndrome despite optimal hydroxyurea therapy. The procedure success rate was 99.0% for PVC and 97.7% for CVC, with median post-apheresis HbS of 26.5% and 24.0%, respectively. Complications, mostly transient and without clinical impact, occurred in 9.1% of PVC procedures and 6.8% of CVC procedures. No infectious or and thrombotic events were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that aEEX under light sedation with US-guided PVC placement is a safe, well-tolerated and effective alternative to CVC in selected paediatric patients with SCD. This approach may expand access to aEEX reducing reliance on CVC and manual exchange procedures.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The authors have confirmed clinical trial registration is not needed for this submission.