111 research outputs found

    Bacterial Contamination Rates in extracorporal Photopheresis

    Get PDF
    Background: Extracorporal photopheresis (ECP) is an immunosuppressive treatment that involves leukocyte apheresis, psoralen und UV light treatment, and susequent reinfusion. Patients treated with ECP are usually immunosuppressed. Bacterial contamination therefore poses a much unwanted risk, but incidence data are lacking. Patients and Methods: We screened all 1922 consecutive ECP procedures scheduled within a roughly 3-year period for eligibility. Those with missing data on ECP method (inline or offline) or type of enous access (peripheral or central) were excluded. ECPs with complete aerobic and anearobic microbial testing of baseline patient blood samples (n=1637) and of ECP cell concentrtes (n=1814) were included in the analysis. Results: A test for microbial contamination was positive for 1,82% of the cell concentrates, with central venous accesss was the most significant risk factor for the contamination (odds ration = 19). Patient blood samples were positive in 3,85% of cases, but no patients became septic. Staphylococcus spp. were most abundant, and products with bacterial contamination did not cause side effects after reinfusion. There were no signifacant differences in contamination rates between inline and offline ECP. Conclusion: These findings stress the importance of sterile procedures and the benefits of using peripheral over central venous access for reducing the risk of bacterial contamination in ECP

    Bacterial contamination rates in extracorporeal photopheresis

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) is an immunosuppressive treatment that involves leukocyte apheresis, psoralen and UV light treatment, and subsequent reinfusion. Patients treated with ECP are usually immunosuppressed. Bacterial contamination therefore poses a much unwanted risk, but incidence data are lacking. PATIENTS AND METHODS We screened all 1922 consecutive ECP procedures scheduled within a roughly 3-year period for eligibility. Those with missing data on ECP method (inline or offline) or type of venous access (peripheral or central) were excluded. ECPs with complete aerobic and anaerobic microbial testing of baseline patient blood samples (n = 1637) and of ECP cell concentrates (n = 1814) were included in the analysis. RESULTS A test for microbial contamination was positive for 1.82% of the cell concentrates, with central venous access was the most significant risk factor for the contamination (odds ratio = 19). Patient blood samples were positive in 3.85% of cases, but no patients became septic. Staphylococcus spp. were most abundant, and products with bacterial contamination did not cause side effects after reinfusion. There were no significant differences in contamination rates between inline and offline ECP. CONCLUSION These findings stress the importance of sterile procedures and the benefits of using peripheral over central venous access for reducing the risk of bacterial contamination in ECP

    Multistep screening and selection of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma donors at the early stage of the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic: A retrospective analysis

    Get PDF
    Background and Aims The COVID-19 pandemic reached Bavaria in February 2020. Almost simultaneously, Chinese physicians published reports on the first successful treatments with plasma from COVID-19 convalescent donors. With these silver linings on the horizon, we decided to establish the manufacturing of anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody-containing plasma from COVID-19 convalescent donors at our site. Here we describe our donor selection process, built from the ground up, which enabled us to cope with the immense resonance after our social media call for donors. Methods As a first step, we created a specific questionnaire for telephone interviews applied by trained students to filter the wave of callers interested in plasma donation. Afterward, the medical staff evaluated the hotline questionnaires and chose eligible donors to be invited for on-site donor evaluation. Data documentation was performed with MS Excel, and statistical analyses were calculated with GraphPad Prism 8. A quantitative in-house ELISA was used to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and determine specific titers. Results Out of 1465 calls from potential plasma donors, we could register 420 persons with a completed questionnaire. Evaluation of questionnaires identified 222 of 420 persons as eligible for donation, and 55 were directly asked for on-site donor qualification. Subsequently, as anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers ≄1:800 were required, we invited 89 of 222 potential donors for an antibody screening. This procedure resulted in another 28 potential donors for an on-site evaluation. Finally, 12 donors qualified with a titer of 1:400 and 24 with ≄1:800. Conclusion Identifying suitable COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors was expected to be highly time-consuming. Implementing a screening procedure with our hotline questionnaire helped us streamline the donor selection process and reduce the workload for the staff. We propose combining the described selection process with the later introduced on-site antibody screening as an effective strategy

    Auger-Elektronen-Spektroskopie von Metallen und Legierungen

    No full text
    With 121 refs.SIGLECopy held by FIZ Karlsruhe; available from UB/TIB Hannover / FIZ - Fachinformationszzentrum Karlsruhe / TIB - Technische InformationsbibliothekDEGerman
    • 

    corecore