Discussion Following Chapters 2–5
Friedman, with reference to Gürland’s presentation, stated that for the most part, plasmapheresis seemed like an advanced technology in search of a disease to be treated. He believed that there was a list of 55 diseases for which plasmapheresis had been tried with probably not more than one at best for which it had any value. Gurland disagreed by stating that the list of diseases was over 100 and referred to a Panel Discussion at the 1983 ASAIO meeting in Toronto, which concluded that plasmapheresis was beneficial for about one third of the disease states listed. While acknowledging the need for further studies, Gurland stated that for diseases such as Goodpasture’s syndrome and myasthenia gravis, the application of plasmapheresis was clearly indicated. Lotan commented that the specificity and limited capacity of immunosorbents might mean a restriction of application and he asked Gurland what he envisaged for the use of immunosorbents. Gurland replied that there was already experience with IgG and protein A. He accepted that there were difficulties with immunosorption but believed that in view of the rapid progress observed with plasmapheresis in recent years, similar progress in the field of immunosorption could be anticipated.
KeywordsShear Rate Blood Flow Rate Panel Discussion Acceptable Rate Technical Device
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.