Aim To present characteristics of collecting autologous peripheral blood stem cells over a one-year period with an emphasis on efficiency and safety. Methods A retrograde analysis of 24 leukapheresis in 20 adult patients with malignant haematological diseases in the Blood Transfusion Institute of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo, was done. Cell separators Amicus and Spectra Optia were used for collection procedures. Results The patient's age ranged from 27 to 65 years. Target cells were collected in one procedure in sixteen patients, while in four patients they were collected in two procedures. The mean CD34+ collection efficiency was 57.7%. The median number of CD34+ cells and percentage of CD34+ cells in the products were 5.52x10e6/kg (range 3.28-9.00) and 1.57% (range 0.96-2.91). A strong positive correlation was found between the number of CD34+ cells in peripheral blood on the apheresis day and the amount of CD34+ cells collected in the products (r s =0.73). A total of 95% of patients collected the amount of ≥3x10e6/kg and 55% of ≥5x10e6/kg CD34+ cells for a single transplant. A decrease in platelet count, haemoglobin and haematocrit values after the procedure was not significant. Potassium decrease showed statistical significance (p<0.000). Adverse events occurred during one procedure (4.2%). Conclusion A low number of adverse events and good collection efficiency with adequate patient monitoring, indicate that leukapheresis is a safe procedure that is successfully used in the autologous transplantation process in the treatment of malignant haematological diseases.
Bojanić I. Peripheral blood stem cell collection by large volume leukapheresis procedure. 2009.
2.
Bojanić I, Cepulić G, Nemet B, Rajić D, Batinić L, Labar D, et al. Osobitosti sakupljanja autolognih krvotvornih matičnih stanica iz periferne krvi u pedijatrijskih bolesnika (Autologous peripheral blood stem cell collection in pediatric patients). Liječ Vjes. 2006. p. 43–8.
3.
Grubovic R, Georgievski B, Cevreska L, Genadieva-Stavric S, Grubovic M. Factors associated with successful mobilization and collection of peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cells in autologous and allogenic donors. SEE J Immunol. 2017.
4.
Pivkova A, Genadieva-Stavrik S, Stojanoski Z, Cevreska L, Karanfilski O, Trajkova S, et al. Mobilization strategies for autologous collection and cryopreservation of peripheral blood stem cells in patients with lymphoproliferative diseases. Maced J Med Sci. 2009. p. 209–16.
5.
Urošević I, Balint B, Popović S. Matične ćelije hematopoeze periferne krvi -biologija, aferezno prikupljanje i kriokonzervacija (Peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cells -biology, apheresis collection and cryopreservation. Med Pregl. 2007. p. 42–7.
6.
Sofo-Hafizovic A, Dizdarevic-Rekic A, Ibricevic-Balic L, Burazerovic L, Vila M, Suljovic-Hadzimesic E, et al. Successful collection of stem cells in one day in the process of autologous stem cell transplantation. IFMBE Proceedings. Springer; 2017.
7.
Vacca M, Perseghin P, Accorsi P, Pierelli L. Central venous catheter insertion in peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cell sibling donors: the SidEM (Italian Society of Hemapheresis and Cell Manipulation) point of view. Transfus Apher Sci. 2014. p. 200–6.
8.
Lee G, Arepally G. Anticoagulation techniques in apheresis: from heparin to citrate and beyond. J Clin Apher. 2012. p. 117–25.
9.
Henriksson M, Newman E, Witt V, Derfler K, Leitner G, Eloot S, et al. Adverse events in apheresis: an update of WAA registry data. Transfus Apher Sci. 2016. p. 2–15.
10.
Lee S, Sohn J, Kong J, Eom H, Lee H, Kong S. Comparison of two apheresis systems of Cobe and Optia for autologous peripheral blood stem cell collection. Ann Lab Med. 2017. p. 327–30.
11.
Setia R, Arora S, Handoo A, Choudhary D, Sharma S, Dadu T, et al. Comparison of “Amicus and COBE Spectra” for autologous peripheral blood stem cell harvest: An Indian experience. Glob J Transfus Med. 2017. p. 102–8.
12.
Wallis W, Qazilbash M. Peripheral blood stem cell mobilization in multiple myeloma: Growth factors or chemotherapy? World J Transplant. 2017. p. 250–9.
13.
Hequet O. Hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell harvesting: technical advances and clinical utility. J Blood Med. 2015. p. 55–67.
14.
Sakashita A, Kondo A, Ribeiro A, Cipolletta A, Colesanti M, Hamerschlak N, et al. Factors affecting autologous peripheral blood hematopoietic stem cell collections by large-volume leukapheresis: a single center experience. Einstein. 2011. p. 196–200.
15.
Demirer T, Ilhan O, Ayli M, Arat M, Dagli M, Ozcan M, et al. Monitoring of peripheral blood CD34+ Cell counts on the first day of apheresis is highly predictive for efficient CD34+ cell yield. Ther Apher. 2002. p. 384–9.
16.
Giralt S, Costa L, Schriber J, Dipersio J, Maziarz R, Mccarty J, et al. Optimizing autologous stem cell mobilization strategies to improve patient outcomes: consensus guidelines and recommendations. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014. p. 295–308.
17.
Domanovič D. Napovedna vrednost števila celic CD34+ v krvi bolnika/darovalca pred zbiranjem krvotvornih matičnih celic z levkaferezami (Predictive value of CD34+ cells in blood of patient/donor before hematopoietic stem cells collection by leukapheresis). Zdrav Vestn. 2004. p. 63–7.
18.
Yuan S, Wang S. How do we mobilize and collect autologous peripheral blood stem cells? Transfusion. 2017. p. 13–23.
19.
Mohammadi S, Mohammadi A, Nikbakht M, Norooznezhad A, Alimoghaddam K, Ghavamzadeh A. Optimizing stem cell mobilization strategies to ameliorate patient outcomes: a review of guide-lines and recommendations. Int J Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Res. 2017. p. 78–85.
20.
Jillella A, Ustun C. What is the optimum number of CD34+ peripheral blood stem cells for an autologous transplant. Stem Cell Dev. 2004. p. 598–606.
21.
Deneys V, Fabry A, Van Hooydonk M, Sonet A, Andre M, Bourgeois M, et al. Efficiency of autologous stem cell collection: comparison of three different cell separators. Transfus Apher Sci. 2017. p. 35–8.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
,
