Survey on the usage of therapeutic erythrocytapheresis in transfusion services in Italy for the treatment of polycythemia vera, secondary erythrocytosis and hemochromatosis.

INTRODUCTION: Erythrocytapheresis, an apheresis treatment which selectively removes red blood cells, is an alternative to therapeutic phlebotomy, over which it has several advantages. Actually there is a high degree of variability in the use of this treatment. This prompted SIdEM (Italian Society of Hemapheresis and Cell Manipulation) to conduct a survey on the use of erythrocytapheresis in the Italian Transfusion Services. The purpose is to monitor this activity in the treatment of Polycythemia Vera (pv), secondary erythrocytosis and hemochromatosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A data collection file was sent to the SIdEM regional delegates who, in turn, involved the Transfusion Centers in the areas they cover. The data collected were processed on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. RESULTS: 75 centers from 14 Italian regions responded to the Survey: 36 centers (48 %) use erythrocytapheresis (35 centers perform therapeutic apheresis and 1 center only donor apheresis), 39 centers (52 %) do not (15 centers perform therapeutic apheresis, 18 centers only donor apheresis and 6 centers do not perform either therapeutic apheresis or donor apheresis). Although most centers have a substantially uniform attitude concerning the indications for which erythrocytapheresis is used, the survey shows that there are still differences more evident in the treatment of secondary erythrocytosis than in the treatment of pv or hemochromatosis. CONCLUSIONS: This survey has been useful to document the current Italian reality and to raise awareness about the need for improvement in optimizing and standardizing the use of a therapy with a great potential to exploit properly.

Thewithdrawal of consent to haematopoietic stem cells (HSC) donation: The complicated balance between donor's rights and patient's protection.

Hematopoietic stem cells donation is an essential prerequisite of allogeneic transplantation. Both family donors and matched unrelated donors should have a conscious involvement in every phase of the overall path, from selection to HSC collection. Donors also should be informed about the right to withdraw at any time as well as the extreme risk for recipient's life coming from the decision of interrupting, if the donation is not carried out once the patient's preparative regimen has commenced. We report our challenging experience about a donor who withdraws her consent to HSC donation after 3 days of mobilization with G-CSF. The possibility of withdrawal protects the donor but it also puts at risk both a chance for a transplant and the patient's life if preparative regimen has started. Can the donor really be free to withdraw the consent to HSC donation at any time even when this endangers the life of a recipient? Is this ethical? However, if the donor decides to withdraw, would we really be ready to manage promptly all the consequences coming from the consent revocation? At the moment there is not a well-defined "plan B" in case of impossibility to proceed with the transplant when conditioning has already started or has even been completed. In our opinion, because of this hard balance and such a high risk, it would be necessary to plan every time an alternative strategy which may be different according to different circumstances.