Manual plasmapheresis in the treatment of Guillain-Barré syndrome

Plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome

BACKGROUND

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute paralysing disease caused by peripheral nerve inflammation. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of plasma exchange for treating GBS.

SEARCH METHODS

On 18 January 2016 we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We also searched clinical trials registries.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of plasma exchange versus sham exchange or supportive treatment, or comparing different regimens or techniques of plasma exchange.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methodology.

MAIN RESULTS

In the first version of this review there were six eligible trials concerning 649 participants comparing plasma exchange with supportive treatment. No new eligible trials have been identified in subsequent updates. Two other studies compared different numbers of plasma exchanges. Overall the included trials had a moderate risk of bias (in general, the studies were at low risk but all had a high risk of bias from lack of blinding).In one trial with 220 severely affected participants, the median time to recover walking with aid was significantly shorter with plasma exchange (30 days) than without plasma exchange (44 days). In another trial with 91 mildly affected participants, the median time to onset of motor recovery was significantly shorter with plasma exchange (six days) than without plasma exchange (10 days). After four weeks, moderate-quality evidence from the combined data of three trials accounting for a total of 349 patients showed that plasma exchange significantly increased the proportion of patients who recovered the ability to walk with assistance (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.15).In five trials with 623 participants in total, moderate-quality evidence showed that the RR for improvement by one or more disability grades after four weeks was 1.64 (95% CI 1.37 to 1.96) times greater with plasma exchange. Participants treated with plasma exchange also fared better, according to moderate-quality evidence, in time to recover walking without aid (three trials with 349 participants; RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.79) and requirement for artificial ventilation (five trials with 623 participants; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.74). More participants had relapses by the end of follow-up in the plasma exchange group than in the control group (six trials with 649 participants; RR 2.89, 95% CI 1.05 to 7.93; moderate-quality evidence). Despite this, according to moderate-quality evidence, the likelihood of full muscle strength recovery at one year was greater with plasma exchange than without plasma exchange (five trials with 404 participants; RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.45), and the likelihood of severe motor sequelae was less (six trials with 649 participants; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.96). High-quality evidence from six trials with 649 participants could not confirm or refute a lower risk of death following plasma exchange compared to control (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.65).Three trials (N = 556) provided details of serious adverse events during the hospital stay; combined analyses found no increase in serious infectious events compared to the control group (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.13), nor were there clear differences in blood pressure instability, cardiac arrhythmias or pulmonary emboli.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence shows significantly more improvement with plasma exchange than with supportive care alone in adults with Guillain-Barré syndrome, without a significant increase in serious adverse events. According to moderate-quality evidence, there was a small but significant increase in the risk of relapse during the first six to 12 months after onset in people treated with plasma exchange compared with those who were not treated. Despite this, after one year, full recovery of muscle strength was more likely and severe residual weakness less likely with plasma exchange.

Plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome

BACKGROUND

Guillain-Barré syndrome is an acute paralysing disease caused by peripheral nerve inflammation. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of plasma exchange for treating Guillain-Barré syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (14 June 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2011, Issue 2), MEDLINE (January 1966 to June 2011) and EMBASE (January 1980 to June 2011).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of plasma exchange versus sham exchange or supportive treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors agreed the selection of eligible studies and independently assessed the risk of bias in included studies. Data were extracted by one review author and checked by a second review author. Likewise data for adverse events were extracted by one review author and checked by a second review author.

MAIN RESULTS

In the first version of this review there were six eligible trials concerning 649 participants comparing plasma exchange with supportive treatment. No new eligible trials have been identified in subsequent updates. Overall the included trials had a low risk of bias.Primary outcomes In one trial with 220 severely affected participants, the median time to recover walking with aid was significantly faster; with plasma exchange (30 days) than without (44 days). In another trial with 91 mildly affected participants, the median time to onset of motor recovery was significantly shorter with plasma exchange (six days) than without (10 days). After four weeks, combined data from three trials accounting for a total of 349 patients showed that plasma exchanged significantly increased the proportion of patients who recovered the ability to walk with assistance (risk ratio (RR) 1.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 2.15).Secondary outcomes In five trials with 623 participants in total, the RR of being improved by one or more grades after four weeks was 1.64 (95% CI 1.37 to 1.96) in favour of plasma exchange. Participants treated with plasma exchange also fared significantly better in time to recover walking without aid (three trials with 349 participants, RR 1.72 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.79)) and requirement for artificial ventilation (five trials with 623 participants, RR 0.53 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.74)). There were significantly more participants with relapses by the end of follow-up in the plasma exchange than the control group (6 trials with 649 participants, RR 2.89 (95% CI 1.05 to 7.93)). Despite this, at one year the likelihood of full muscle strength recovery was significantly greater with plasma exchange than without (five trials with 404 participants, RR 1.24 (95% CI 1.07 to 1.45)) and the likelihood of severe motor sequelae was significantly less (six trials with 649 patients, RR 0.65 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.96)). There was no significant difference in deaths (six trials with 649 participants, RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.65)) or participants with adverse events (three trials with 556 participants), except fewer arrhythmias in plasma exchange treated participants (RR 0.75 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.00)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence shows significantly more improvement with plasma exchange than supportive care alone in adults with Guillain-Barré syndrome without a significant increase in serious adverse events. There was a small but significant increase in the risk of relapse during the first six to 12 months after onset in people treated with plasma exchange compared with those that were not treated. Despite this, after one year, full recovery was significantly more likely and severe residual weakness less likely with plasma exchange.

Physiological changes during and outcome following 'filtration' based continuous plasma exchange in Guillain Barre Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic plasma exchange is an extracorporeal blood purification technique designed for the removal of large molecular weight substances from plasma. It is the first line treatment in Guillain Barre Syndrome (GBS) improving outcome.

AIM

To study the outcome in GBS following therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) utilizing a modified, cost saving, filtration based plasma exchange technique.

METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS

Consenting patients with GBS underwent TPE using a modified regime of two 48 h sessions as a cost saving strategy. The second session was conducted only if there was inadequate benefit from the first session. Nerve conduction studies confirmed the diagnosis of GBS.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients were studied. One died following a cerebro-vascular accident. Of the remaining 14 patients, five showed improvement in muscle power at least by one grade in one limb within 48 h of plasma exchange. The duration of intensive care unit stay was 10 (median) days (range 4-66). Nine required mechanical ventilation for (median) 15 days (range 4-50). The mean 24h urine output increased significantly since the initiation of plasma exchange was 6262.92 ml (SD=8867.24, P=0.032) at 48 h and 6474.92 ml at 72 h (SD=6364.81, P=0.003). The pulse rates and blood pressures were not significantly different before and after plasma exchange. Complications attributable to plasma exchange were mild; a hypersensitivity reaction and a tendency to ooze from a puncture site.

CONCLUSION

'Continuous' TPE, the modified cost saving technique seems to improve the outcome of patients with Guillain Barre Syndrome with minimal complications.

Plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome

BACKGROUND

Guillain-Barré syndrome is an acute symmetric, usually ascending and usually paralysing illness, due to inflammation of peripheral nerves. It is thought to be caused by autoimmune factors, such as antibodies. Plasma exchange removes antibodies and other potentially injurious factors from the blood stream. It involves connecting the patient's blood circulation to a machine which exchanges the plasma for a substitute solution, usually albumin. Several studies have evaluated plasma exchange for Guillain-Barré syndrome.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the evidence concerning the efficacy of plasma exchange for treating Guillain-Barré syndrome.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Search of the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Trial Register for randomised trials concerning plasma exchange in Guillain-Barré syndrome, search of the bibliographies of identified papers and enquiry from the authors of the papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials of plasma exchange versus sham exchange or supportive treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Potentially relevant papers were scrutinised by two reviewers and the selection of eligible studies was agreed by them and a third reviewer. Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Some missing data were obtained from the authors of studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Six eligible trials concerning 649 patients were identified, all comparing plasma exchange versus supportive treatment alone. Primary outcome measures ~bullet~Time to recover walking with aid In the only two trials for which this measure was reported, the median time to recover this ability was faster in the plasma exchange than the control group. ~bullet~Time to onset of motor recovery in mildly affected patients In the one trial for which this measure was available, the time was significantly shortened in the plasma exchange group. Secondary outcome measures ~bullet~Improvement in disability grade at four weeks In five trials, there were significantly more patients who had improved by one disability grade or more in the plasma exchange group as compared to the control group. Patients treated with plasma exchange fared significantly better in the following secondary outcome measures: time to recover walking without aid, percentage of patients requiring artificial ventilation, duration of ventilation, full muscle strength recovery after one year, and severe sequelae after one year. There were less patients with infectious events and cardiac arrhythmias in the plasma exchange than the control group. Subgroup analyses Plasma exchange was beneficial in patients with mild, moderate and severe (needing ventilation) Guillain-Barré syndrome. It was beneficial in patients with a disease duration of seven or less days and also in those with disease lasting more than seven days. However, in the only trial that enrolled patients up to 30 days from disease onset, the benefit of plasma exchange in patients treated after seven days was less apparent. Type of treatment Single studies showed that two plasma exchanges were significantly superior to none for mild Guillain-Barré syndrome and four to two for moderate Guillain-Barré syndrome, but that six were not superior to four for severe Guillain-Barré syndrome requiring ventilation. One study suggested that continuous flow plasma exchange was significantly superior to intermittent flow. Another study found no significant difference between the two techniques. The same study found a significantly higher rate of adverse events with fresh frozen plasma as the replacement fluid than albumin. Plasma exchange compared with cerebrospinal fluid filtration A single trial comparing these two treatments did not show any difference in outcomes but was too small to demonstrate equivalence.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Plasma exchange is the first and only treatment that has been proven to be superior to supportive treatment alone in Guillain-Barré syndrome. Consequently, plasma exchange should be regarded as the treatment against which new treatments, such as intravenous immunoglobulin, should be judged. In mild Guillain-Barré syndrome two sessions of plasma exchange are superior to none. In moderate Guillain-Barré syndrome four sessions are superior to two. In severe Guillain-Barré syndrome six sessions are no better than four. Continuous flow plasma exchange machines may be superior to intermittent flow machines and albumin to fresh frozen plasma as the exchange fluid. Plasma exchange is more beneficial when started within seven days after disease onset rather than later, but was still beneficial in patients treated up to 30 days after disease onset. The value of plasma exchange in children less than 12 years old is not known. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether cerebrospinal fluid filtration is equivalent to plasma exchange.