Al-Tanbal H, Al Humaidan H, Al-Nounou R, Roberts G, Tesfamichael K, Owaidah T
Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Transfus Med. 2010 Jun;20(3):160-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3148.2009.00988.x. Epub 2010 Jan 12.
There is an increased risk of infection in patients with neutropaenia, especially in those with neutrophil counts of less than 0.5 x 10(9)/L, and neutropaenia-associated infection remains a limiting factor in treating malignancy especially of haematopoietic origin. Transfusing donor neutrophils is a logical approach to these problems, but granulocyte transfusion (GTx), a practice first advocated in the 1960s, is underused and although now enjoying resurgence, remains controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the practical aspects of GTx and clinical responses in patients receiving them. This is an observational retrospective review of GTx in patients undergoing therapy for predominantly haematological malignancies. We reviewed blood bank records and identified patients who received therapeutic granulocytes procured by leukapheresis and linked these recipients with their granulocyte donors. We determined the reasons for GTx and their clinical and relevant haematological responses to the transfusions. We identified 22 patients receiving at least three continuous days of GTx and who had adequate clinical and haematological data. Most donors were relatives and ABO matched with their respective recipients. Mean age of the patients was 28.8 years. Severe aplastic anaemia was the most common diagnosis, occurring in 9 patients (40.9%), followed by acute myeloid leukaemia in 6 (27.3%). Disseminated fungal infection was the most common reason for GTx, occurring in 16 patients (73%), followed by febrile neutropaenia in 7 patients. Fifteen (68.2%) patients showed clinical improvement. This uncontrolled retrospective observational study provides some evidence that procurement and use of GTx is safe for both donors and recipients and is probably an effective supportive therapy for patients with febrile neutropaenia.
中性粒细胞减少症患者发生感染的风险增加,尤其是中性粒细胞计数低于0.5×10⁹/L的患者,并且与中性粒细胞减少相关的感染仍然是治疗恶性肿瘤尤其是造血系统恶性肿瘤的一个限制因素。输注供体中性粒细胞是解决这些问题的合理方法,但是粒细胞输注(GTx)这一始于20世纪60年代的做法未得到充分应用,尽管目前正在复兴,但仍存在争议。本研究的目的是确定GTx的实际情况以及接受GTx治疗的患者的临床反应。这是一项对主要接受血液系统恶性肿瘤治疗的患者进行GTx的观察性回顾性研究。我们查阅了血库记录,确定了接受通过白细胞单采术采集的治疗性粒细胞的患者,并将这些接受者与其粒细胞供体进行关联。我们确定了进行GTx的原因以及他们对输血的临床和相关血液学反应。我们确定了22例接受至少连续三天GTx治疗且有足够临床和血液学数据的患者。大多数供体是亲属,且ABO血型与各自的接受者匹配。患者的平均年龄为28.8岁。重型再生障碍性贫血是最常见的诊断,有9例(40.9%),其次是急性髓系白血病6例(27.3%)。播散性真菌感染是进行GTx最常见的原因,有16例(73%),其次是发热性中性粒细胞减少症7例。15例(68.2%)患者显示临床改善。这项非对照的回顾性观察性研究提供了一些证据,表明GTx的采集和使用对供体和接受者都是安全的,并且可能是治疗发热性中性粒细胞减少症患者的一种有效支持性疗法。