Centrifugal Plasma Exchange Versus Double-Filtration Plasmapheresis in Chronic CIDP: A Randomized Crossover Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes, Biological Effects, Procedure Times, and Costs-The Lymphoapheresis Study.

What was studied

This crossover study compared cTPE with DFPP in CIDP. cTPE is centrifugal plasma exchange. DFPP is double-filtration plasmapheresis. CIDP is a chronic nerve disease with inflammation. It was a single-center, randomized study. 5 men with CIDP took part. They were already on long-term plasmapheresis. Median age was 62 years. They had 30 sessions in all, 15 of each type.

What they found

Short-term clinical outcomes did not differ between methods. Adverse events did not differ either. Session time did not differ significantly between methods. It was longer with peripheral access than with central access. The times were 201 and 177 minutes. cTPE cut platelets, fibrinogen and IgG more per session. Albumin use was higher with cTPE, 180 g against 20 g. Weight gain was greater with DFPP. Cost per session was higher with DFPP when HSA was used as fluid.

What it means for patients

The authors say cTPE and DFPP showed similar short-term efficacy and safety. They say session time depended on vascular access, not on the method. They say DFPP costs come mainly from material and platform costs.

Why it is not certain yet

Only 5 patients took part. All were men. It was a single-center study. Cost data are based on French blood product costs. Results were short-term.

Source

Centrifugal Plasma Exchange Versus Double-Filtration Plasmapheresis in Chronic CIDP: A Randomized Crossover Study Comparing Clinical Outcomes, Biological Effects, Procedure Times, and Costs-The Lymphoapheresis Study.

We restate facts from the source record in our own words. The original wording belongs to its publisher.