Consult the medical resource doctors trust

UpToDate is one of the most respected medical information resources in the world, used by over 360,000 doctors and thousands of patients to find answers to medical questions.

  • Content written by a faculty of over 4,000 physicians from leading medical institutions
  • Unbiased: free of advertising or pharmaceutical funding
  • Evidence-based treatment recommendations
  • Continuously updated to incorporate new medical findings

Related articles included with a subscription

Plasmapheresis with hemodialysis equipment

As a subscriber you will have access to the full contents of this article

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE, plasmapheresis) is usually performed with centrifugation devices used in blood blanking procedures. (See "Prescription and technique of therapeutic plasma exchange".) These devices permit selective cell removal (cytapheresis) but are often associated with posttreatment thrombocytopenia [1]. An increasingly popular and often more efficient alternative is to perform plasma exchange by membrane plasma separation (MPS) [2-5].

MPS utilizes a highly permeable membrane and a standard dialysis machine used in its ultrafiltration mode, dialysis-bypass mode (similar to the technique in hemoperfusion). The most commonly used membrane in the United States is the Plasmaflo from Asahi Medical. This filter can be used with most dialysis machines, but the Cobe 3 and Hospal machines are incompatible with the filter's tubing. The published American experience is very limited even though thousands of treatments are performed in the United States each year [6,7].

TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Plasmaflo filter should be operated with a very modest transmembrane pressure (TMP <75 mmHg) and blood flow (50 to 150 mL/min) in order to minimize the tendency to hemolysis and filter clotting [6,8]. Limiting TMP can be most easily achieved by limiting blood flow, usually via use of a double roller pump on the filtrate output of the filter. This double pump also regulates the infusion of replacement fluid (such as albumin or fresh frozen plasma), matching its rate of return to the volume of plasma removed, thereby eliminating the risk of hypotension or fluid overload.

It is important to appreciate that rapid removal and infusion of protein-containing solutions produce volume changes that are essentially limited to the intravascular compartment. Thus, even small mismatches in net plasma removal rate will have a far greater effect on systemic blood pressure than would be produced by an equivalent water shift during standard hemodialysis [9].

The protein permeable membranes, such as the Plasmaflo, are very susceptible to concentration polarization, a phenomenon whereby protein layering on the inner surface of the membrane rapidly limits the maximum achievable filtration rate [3]. As a result, inappropriately high transmembrane pressures will not yield higher filtration rates but will increase the tendency for the filter to clog (graph 1). Dialysis nursing issues have been the subject of several reviews [8,10,11].

To continue reading this article you need to subscribe.

Read the rest of this article and others like it

The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use (click here) ©2010 UpToDate, Inc.
References Top
  1. Sowada, K, Malchesky, PS, Nose, Y. Available removal systems: State of the art. In: Therapeutic Hemapheresis in the 1990s, Nydegger, UE (Ed), Curr Stud Hematol Blood Transf, Karger, Basel, 1990, No 57, pp. 51-113.
  2. Gurland, HJ, Lysaght, MH, Samtleben, W, Schmidt, B. A comparison of centrifugal and membrane based apheresis formats. Int J Artif Organs 1984; 7:35.
  3. Gurland, HJ, Lysaght, MJ, Samtleben, W, Schmidt, B. Comparative evaluation of filters used in membrane plasmapheresis. Nephron 1984; 36:173.
  4. Kaplan, AA. Therapeutic plasma exchange: Core curriculum 2008. Am J Kidney Dis 2008; 52:1180.
  5. Kaplan, AA. Why nephrologists should do therapeutic plasma exchange. Dial Transplant 2009; 38:65.
  6. Gerhardt, RE, Ntoso, KA, Koethe, JD, et al. Acute plasma separation with hemodialysis equipment. J Am Soc Nephrol 1992; 2:1455.
  7. Howard, RL, Tatum, K, Chan, L, Shapiro, JI. Performance of plasmapheresis by nephrologists: A survey. Dial Transplant 1990; 19:484.
  8. Price, CA. Therapeutic plasma exchange in a dialysis unit. ANNA J 1987; 14:103.
  9. Mokrzycki, MH, Kaplan, AA. Therapeutic plasma exchange: Complications and management. Am J Kidney Dis 1994; 23:817.
  10. Price, CA, McCarley, PB. Technical considerations of therapeutic plasma exchange as a nephrology nursing procedure. ANNA J 1993; 20:41.
  11. Price, CA, McCarley, PB. Physical assessment for patients receiving therapeutic plasma exchange. ANNA J 1994; 21:149.
  12. Ilamathi, E, Kirsch, M, Moore, B, Finger, M. Citrate anticoagulation during plasmapheresis using standard hemodialysis equipment. Semin Dial 1993; 6:268.
  13. Frasca, GM, Buscaroli, A, Borgnino, LC, Vangelista, A. Optimization of heparin anticoagulation during membrane plasma separation. Int J Artif Organs 1988; 11:313.
  14. Pearl, RG, Rosenthal, MH. Metabolic alkalosis due to plasmapheresis. Am J Med 1985; 79:391.
  15. Kaplan, AA, Halley, SE. Plasma exchange with a rotating filter. Kidney Int 1990; 38:160.
white circle LOG IN
white circle DEMO