Browsing by Subject "Neuromyelitis Optica"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Neuromyelitis optica: Clinical course and potential prognostic indicators.
    (Multiple sclerosis and related disorders, 2023-01) Masha, Nidhila; Kimbrough, Dorlan J; Eckstein, Christopher P; Hudak, Nicholas M; Skeen, Mark B; Hartsell, F Lee; Lutz, Michael W; Shah, Suma

    Background

    Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD) is a rare autoimmune neurological disorder associated with antibodies to aquaporin-4 (AQP4). NMOSD has been thought to follow a progressive disease course, with step-wise accumulation of disability over time, even in patients undergoing immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapy. The influence of factors such as AQP4 seropositivity, AQP4 serum titer levels, and administration of plasmapheresis on NMOSD prognosis is, as yet, unclear.

    Methods

    We performed a retrospective chart review of 53 persons with NMOSD at Duke University Hospital-collecting data on longitudinal disease course, imaging, demographics, and serum AQP4 titers (measured using the ELISA or FACS method). Most patients in our cohort were treated with high-dose corticosteroids and, following diagnosis, received maintenance immunosuppressive/immunomodulatory therapies. Longitudinal data on EDSS scores were used to calculate the slope of disability over time for each participant. We additionally investigated the correlation between initial AQP4 seropositivity, initial AQP4 serum titer levels, and treatment with plasmapheresis on disability progression for each participant.

    Results

    Contrary to current views on NMOSD disease course, the majority of our participants showed either no change (31.9%) or improvement (27.1%) in disability over time. Our results additionally revealed no significant association between clinical prognosis and initial AQP4 seropositivity (p = 0.830), initial AQP4 serum titer levels (p = 0.338), or administration of plasmapheresis (p = 0.1149).

    Conclusions

    Our study presents a contemporary view of the clinical course of NMOSD and shows a more favorable view of its disease course than prior studies (performed before high-efficacy disease modifying therapies became widely-used for this patient population). Most patients in this study received treatment with high-dose corticosteroids following NMOSD flares, as well as a variety of maintenance immunosuppressive therapies. The results of this study cannot shed light on the disease course of untreated NMOSD. Our findings additionally challenge the theory that AQP4 seropositivity or serum titer levels at time of diagnosis may be used to effectively predict NMOSD prognosis. While we were unable to find evidence supporting a favorable effect of plasmapheresis administration on disease outcomes, further research is needed to determine the role plasmapheresis ought to play in the treatment of NMOSD.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    ItemOpen Access
    Strategies to Aid Identification of Apheresis PowerFlow Ports: A Case Report.
    (Journal of emergency nursing, 2021-01) Gill, Janique C; Oakley, Darlene J; Onwuemene, Oluwatoyosi A

    Introduction

    The PowerFlow implantable apheresis intravenous port is a venous access device for therapeutic apheresis procedures. In this case review article, we identify key similarities and differences between apheresis PowerFlow ports and traditional ports. We also list strategies that emergency departments can implement to aid in correct port identification.

    Methods

    Using a case review format, we describe the clinical presentation of a 33-year-old female with neuromyelitis optica who was evaluated in the emergency department for an acute exacerbation. She had a history of outpatient apheresis procedures that made use of bilateral PowerFlow ports. Mistaken for a conventional port, the right PowerFlow port was accessed with a Huber needle rather than the appropriate catheter-over-needle device. On infusion of intravenous fluids, the patient experienced pain and swelling. Ultimately, the port malfunctioned and was eventually replaced.

    Results

    A subsequent root cause analysis identified opportunities for education and aids to improve port identification. To this end, strategies were implemented to appropriately identify the PowerFlow port using at least 2 of the following methods: (1) look in the patient's chart for record of an implantable apheresis intravenous port; (2) check the port identification card, bracelet, or keychain issued at insertion; (3) palpate the port to look for the rounded top and hollow concave entry point; and (4) use x-ray or fluoroscopy to identify radiopaque port markers.

    Conclusion

    When a patient with a history of apheresis procedures presents with an implanted port, steps should be taken to ensure correct identification and access.