Jump to content

Talk:Apheresis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

i tried to make it more organized, and enable normal people to follow the basic concepts. i did not really write or delete anything, i just moved things around, added headers, made it more wikipedia-ish.

i am sorry if i made any errors.. please correct them... or revert the whole thing if you like...

what does intravenous immunoglobin have to do with apheresis

[edit]

also, i am having a hard time understanding how IVIG has anything to do with apheresis.

as far as therapy, apparently IVIG is administered as an IV?

as far as donation, it comes from thousands of donors... are you saying most of those donors haven given blood through some sort of apheresis? what sort of apheresis? how is the blood from which comes IVIG, any different from ordinary non-apheresis blood donations?

if anyone can fix this please help.


========================================================
[edit]

I agree with your concern. IVIG is used as an alternate to apheresis (specifically plasma exchange) for many neurologic diseases (AIDP, CIDP) and has been found to be equivalent to plasma exchange with regard to outcomes though it is substantially more exppensive. i think that this section should be deleted. It is not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathdoc1984 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the section on IVIG after reviewing the IVIG page. Discussing the equivalency of plasma exchange and IVIG here would be redundant with what is on the IVIG page and is inappropriate, in my opinion, with the fact that this is a more generic description of apheresis. once could consider adding it to the plasma exchange page ut I would not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathdoc1984 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article is clearly related to at least the following website: http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/BLDBANK/BBAPHER.html

If this was an authorized copy of information, could you please post the license status here on the talk page? --Chinasaur 23:54, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right, it's a copyvio. I've sent an email to eklatt@mailer.fsu.edu for permission to use the material. If the answer is negative, I will treat it as a copyvio. JFW | T@lk 09:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Professor Klatt was not pleased, so I'm listing this on WP:CP and I've undertaken a rewrite. JFW | T@lk 18:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reluctantly, I have rewritten the page in a more concise form. I removed the pictures. The first one needs review for ?copyvio, and the blood donation picture does not pertain here (apheresis needs two needles). Finally, there was no room for the platelet bag. Please complain on my talk page. JFW | T@lk 19:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


(apheresis needs two needles) <- right and wrong!
I've been a platelet donor for over a deacde. In the early 90s, there were only two-needle models. But today there are many models that use the same tube to draw and return blood. These pictures were taken by me three days ago. I was the donor. It was a single-arm model. Not every platelet donor can use the single arm machine. You need to have a larger and stronger vein. You also have to be over 50 kg in weight. There are few models that can separate about 500 ml (2 units) of platelets in less than 2 hours. Most of them are still using two needles. But today's newer single unit machines are single-arm models. Dual-arm models are older ones or reserved for people whose veins are too thin. I knew there's a single-arm two-unit model. But I have not tried it. -- Toytoy 12:53, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Wow, that sucks; I would have thought we were going to get permission for this one. Thanks for the rewrite, I'll work on it this week if I see anything I can add. Didn't the picture of blood separation come from the other website too (unfortunately...)?

What did you mean "the picture of blood separation"? The pictures taken by a cheap cellphone camera were mine. And the bell-shaped line-drawing seperator was drawn by someone else for Wikipedia. I think all pictures are OK. However, I will redraw the bell-shaped seperator because it is not empty inside. It has a core. See my picure for details. I will take more pictures next week when I donate platelet again. I have not much time this week. -- Toytoy 05:30, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

No, it was the diagram drawn by Viki. It is actually original. JFW | T@lk 16:03, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Haemonetics patents

[edit]
  • 6,743,192 Apheresis apparatus and method for producing blood products
  • 5,769,811 Blood-processing machine system
  • 5,607,579 Apheresis apparatus for separating an intermediate density component from whole blood
  • 5,494,592 Apheresis apparatus and method

These U.S. patents provide you with very detailed drawings and explainations. -- Toytoy 15:42, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, and that is one manufacturer. We should really aim to make generic diagrams, not ones that are linked to one particular type of apheresis machine. JFW | T@lk 16:03, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If I have time, I'll check if their diagrams can be simplified or generalized. These patents are public domain and they are of very high quality. It will be good to use them. Since I am a Haemonetics user, I actually do not know how other machines work. But I have two blood transfusion handbooks that mentioned about this subject. -- Toytoy 16:23, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
In fact, patents are great resources of usable public domain texts. For example, here's a the BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION section taken from the U.S. patent #6,613,009:
One type of extracorporeal blood processing is an apheresis procedure in which blood is removed from a donor or patient, directed to a blood component separation device (e.g., centrifuge), and separated into various blood component types (e.g., red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, plasma) for collection or therapeutic purposes. One or more of these blood component types are collected (e.g., for therapeutic purposes), while the remainder are returned to the donor or patient.
A number of factors affect the commercial viability of an apheresis system. One factor relates to the operator of the system, specifically the time and/or expertise required of an individual to prepare and operate the apheresis system. For instance, reducing the time required by the operator to load and unload the disposables, as well as the complexity of these actions, can increase productivity and/or reduce the potential for operator error. Moreover, reducing the dependency of the system on the operator may lead to reductions in operator errors and/or to reductions in the credentials esired/required for the operators of these systems.
Donor-related factors may also impact the commercial viability of an apheresis system and include donor convenience and donor comfort. For instance, donors typically have only a certain amount of time which may be committed to visiting a blood component collection facility for a donation. Consequently, once at the collection facility the amount of the donor's time which is actually spent collecting blood components is another factor which should be considered. This also relates to donor comfort in that many view the actual collection procedure as being somewhat discomforting in that at least one and sometimes two access needles are in the donor throughout the procedure.
Performance-related factors continue to affect the commercial viability of an apheresis system. Performance may be judged in terms of the "collection efficiency" of the apheresis system, which may in turn reduce the amount of donation time and thus increase donor convenience. The "collection efficiency" of a system may of course be gauged in a variety of ways, such as by the amount of a particular blood component type which is collected in relation to the number of this blood component type which passes through the apheresis system. Performance may also be evaluated based upon the effect which the apheresis procedure has on the various blood component types. For instance, it is desirable to minimize the adverse effects on the blood component types as a result of the apheresis procedure (e.g., reduce platelet activation)
With a little re-write and copy-edit, you may turn the above text into usable material. There are other patents that talked much more about the technological background than this. -- Toytoy 17:33, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I may be able to take some pictures of the U.S. patent #6,613,009 machine on December 29. It's a totally different machine produced by another company. -- Toytoy 17:40, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

The American Red Cross is now also performing red blood cell apheresis. I did the "double red" procedure last week. http://www.giveblood.org/donor_quad/double_rbc.htm

If taking Leukocytes is Leukapheresis, would this procedure be Erythrapheresis? Ubermonkey 23:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Literary representation of aphersis

[edit]

Sarah Manguso's 2008 memoir The Two Kinds of Decay features extensive descriptions of undergoing apherisis (as part of a treatment for Chronic Idiopathic Demyelinating Polyneuropathy), focusing on both the physiological and psychological nature of the experience. Would a mention of this be appropriate, or do you think it outside the scope of the article? Cazlem (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No gloves?

[edit]

The technician in the photos is wearing no gloves. Can we find a photo that better represents modern knowledge of infectious agents? — Rootbeer (Tom) (U | T | C) 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

[edit]

Under 'leukapheresis,' under 'Donor' section, the term 'HES' is used. Is this Hydroxyethyl starch? Can someone confirm or deny? Either way, it would be best to clarify the meaning/definition of 'HES' and exactly how/why it is used (or not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.217 (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Apheresis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional subsection on Pediatrics

[edit]

I am graduate student, as part of my assignment I would like to add a Pediatric component to this article. It would discuss current practices specific to pediatrics. Thoughts? Mdimola (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC) pediatric I'd like to add [1] to Types of apheresis Mdimola (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Pediatrics
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apheresis&oldid=1198856236"