Cord blood transplants supported by unrelated donor CD34+ progenitor cells.

Alternative donor transplantation with the haplo-cord platform allows the use of a lower-dose single umbilical cord blood unit (CBU) by co-infusion of third-party CD34+-selected cells from a haploidentical relative, which provides early transient engraftment while awaiting durable CBU engraftment. In our experience, ~15% of patients lack a suitable haploidentical donor. Here we report 26 patients who underwent haplo-cord transplant using CD34+-selected partially matched unrelated donor grafts. Twenty-four were conditioned with fludarabine/melphalan +/- low-dose TBI (n = 16). Twenty-five received ATG and all received posttransplant tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil. Median time to neutrophil and platelet recovery was 11 and 18 days. CBU engraftment, with CD33 and CD3 >5% cord chimerism in the myeloid/lymphoid compartment by day +60, occurred in 20 of 24 patients (83%). Incidence of grade 2-4 acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) was 27% at day +100, and chronic GVHD was 4% at 1 year. Overall survival at 1 year was 54%. For patients in need of an alternative transplant who lack a haploidentical donor, haplo-cord transplantation using CD34+-selected partially matched unrelated donor grafts results in rapid engraftment with no increased rate of cord graft failure or GVHD.

Erratum: Outcomes of fluoroscopic and ultrasound-guided placement versus laparoscopic placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/ckj/sfx132.].

Outcomes of fluoroscopic and ultrasound-guided placement versus laparoscopic placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters.

BACKGROUND: Several peritoneal dialysis catheter (PDC) placement techniques have been described. The objective of this study was to compare the fluoroscopy and ultrasound guidance technique with the laparoscopic technique. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 260 patients who had their first PDC placed between January 2005 and June 2016. We compared the outcomes of the fluoroscopic and ultrasound-guided catheter placement technique (radiologic group, n = 50) with the laparoscopic catheter placement technique (laparoscopic group, n = 190). The primary endpoint was complication-free catheter survival at 365 days. Secondary endpoints were complication-free catheter survival at 90 days, overall catheter survival at 90 and 365 days, median days to first complication and median days to catheter removal. RESULTS: In the radiologic group, the complication-free catheter survival at 90 and 365 days was 64% and 48%, respectively, while in the laparoscopic group it was 71% (P = 0.374) and 53% (P = 0.494), respectively. Catheter malfunction was significantly higher in the laparoscopic group (30%) compared with the radiologic group (16%, P = 0.048). The overall catheter survival at 90 and 365 days was 76% and 52%, respectively, in the radiologic group, while in the laparoscopic group it was 88% (P = 0.0514) an 48% (P = 0.652), respectively. There was no significant difference in the median days to first complication and the median days to catheter removal between the two groups (P = 0.71). CONCLUSION: The technique of fluoroscopic and ultrasound-guided PDC placement is a clinically effective and safe alternative to laparoscopic catheter placement with similar survival and complication rates.