5 ms·
Is there a reason everyone presumes in-situ/ closed-loop treatment is required, other than that is what the paper discussed? It seems like an artificial constra
by beerandt 7y ago
Is there a reason everyone presumes in-situ/ closed-loop treatment is required, other than that is what the paper discussed? It seems like an artificial constraint, or maybe just the convenient method to use for research.
Why not: Remove whole blood, treat whole blood (possibly in bulk with other patients' bags of blood), replace whole blood.
It would address most of what you list, and otherwise simplify things, especially if only a small % of blood needs to be treated.
- rogerkirkness 7y agoThis sounds like ECMO or less invasive ECMO.
- beerandt 7y agoNo- that's the opposite direction I was trying to describe. Not a closed loop system. Draw, treat, replace. Whole blood drawn into a bag as if you were donating, then treated separately (maybe even sent to a lab), and then transfused back into the patient. The closed loop systems are what create a lot of the complication and expense. ECMO (or similar) definitely doesn't simplify anything.
- duxup 7y agoHow feasible is it to just....take out all the blood, treat it, and return it? Wouldn't there be some residual blood with a virus or whatever you want to stop? Would that actually be easier to do?
- eternauta3k 7y agoIt's not about sterilizing the blood.
- koheripbal 7y agoThe blood is typically not where the virus or bacteria are concentrated. Also, "treating" the blood would also destroy red and white blood cells which we need to survive. ...not to mention the 10^6 other proteins, antibodies, and many unknown structures in the blood. ...things we'd be breaking that we don't even know what they do yet.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]