Safety and Efficacy of DPMAS in Patients With Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure Based on Different Platelet Count Levels

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 HEMATOLOGY
Lingyun Niu, Jiamei Zhou, Ninghui Zhao, Aiqing Zhang, Qing Ye, Jia Lian, Baiguo Xu, Jing Wen, Jia Yao, Tao Han
{"title":"Safety and Efficacy of DPMAS in Patients With Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure Based on Different Platelet Count Levels","authors":"Lingyun Niu,&nbsp;Jiamei Zhou,&nbsp;Ninghui Zhao,&nbsp;Aiqing Zhang,&nbsp;Qing Ye,&nbsp;Jia Lian,&nbsp;Baiguo Xu,&nbsp;Jing Wen,&nbsp;Jia Yao,&nbsp;Tao Han","doi":"10.1002/jca.70006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>To investigate the effect of different platelet (PLT) counts on the safety and efficacy of the double-plasma molecular absorption system (DPMAS) in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). A total of 156 patients with ACLF receiving DPMAS were divided into the observed group (40 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L ≤ PLT &lt; 50 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L) and the control group (PLT ≥ 50 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L) according to PLT count level. The safety and efficacy indices of bleeding-related complications, PLT reduction rate, total bilirubin (TBIL) reduction rate, and 28-days survival rate after DPMAS were analyzed and compared between the two groups. The incidence of bleeding complications during and after DPMAS in the observed and control groups (14.3% vs. 14.9%, <i>p</i> = 0.922), the decline rate of PLT immediately and 24 h after treatment (0.13 vs. 0.11/0.05 vs. 0.09, <i>p</i> = 0.256/0.161), and the 28-days survival rate after treatment (76.2% vs. 75.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.923) were not significantly different. The thromboelastogram before DPMAS showed no significant difference in PLT function between the two groups (<i>p</i> &gt; 0.05). Although the TBIL level of the two groups rebounded 24 h after treatment compared with immediately after treatment, it decreased significantly immediately and 24 h after treatment compared with pre-treatment levels (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). There was no significant difference in the rate of decline of serum TBIL immediately after treatment and 24 h after treatment between the two groups (0.33 vs. 0.35/0.14 vs. 0.16, <i>p</i> = 0.193 and 0.653, respectively). DPMAS is safe and effective in patients with ACLF with 40 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L ≤ PLT count &lt; 50 × 10<sup>9</sup>/L.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15390,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Apheresis","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Apheresis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jca.70006","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To investigate the effect of different platelet (PLT) counts on the safety and efficacy of the double-plasma molecular absorption system (DPMAS) in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF). A total of 156 patients with ACLF receiving DPMAS were divided into the observed group (40 × 109/L ≤ PLT < 50 × 109/L) and the control group (PLT ≥ 50 × 109/L) according to PLT count level. The safety and efficacy indices of bleeding-related complications, PLT reduction rate, total bilirubin (TBIL) reduction rate, and 28-days survival rate after DPMAS were analyzed and compared between the two groups. The incidence of bleeding complications during and after DPMAS in the observed and control groups (14.3% vs. 14.9%, p = 0.922), the decline rate of PLT immediately and 24 h after treatment (0.13 vs. 0.11/0.05 vs. 0.09, p = 0.256/0.161), and the 28-days survival rate after treatment (76.2% vs. 75.4%, p = 0.923) were not significantly different. The thromboelastogram before DPMAS showed no significant difference in PLT function between the two groups (p > 0.05). Although the TBIL level of the two groups rebounded 24 h after treatment compared with immediately after treatment, it decreased significantly immediately and 24 h after treatment compared with pre-treatment levels (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the rate of decline of serum TBIL immediately after treatment and 24 h after treatment between the two groups (0.33 vs. 0.35/0.14 vs. 0.16, p = 0.193 and 0.653, respectively). DPMAS is safe and effective in patients with ACLF with 40 × 109/L ≤ PLT count < 50 × 109/L.

基于不同血小板计数水平的DPMAS治疗急慢性肝衰竭患者的安全性和有效性
探讨不同血小板(PLT)计数对双血浆分子吸收系统(DPMAS)治疗急性慢性肝衰竭(ACLF)患者安全性和有效性的影响。156例接受DPMAS治疗的ACLF患者根据PLT计数水平分为观察组(40 × 109/L≤PLT 9/L)和对照组(PLT≥50 × 109/L)。分析比较两组患者DPMAS术后出血相关并发症、PLT降低率、总胆红素(TBIL)降低率、28天生存率的安全性和有效性指标。观察组与对照组DPMAS术中及术后出血并发症发生率(14.3% vs. 14.9%, p = 0.922)、即刻及治疗后24 h PLT下降率(0.13 vs. 0.11/0.05 vs. 0.09, p = 0.256/0.161)、治疗后28天生存率(76.2% vs. 75.4%, p = 0.923)差异无统计学意义。DPMAS前血栓弹性图显示两组PLT功能差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。两组患者治疗后24 h TBIL水平虽较治疗后即刻有所回升,但治疗后即刻及24 h均较治疗前显著下降(p < 9/L≤PLT计数9/L)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
13.30%
发文量
70
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Apheresis publishes articles dealing with all aspects of hemapheresis. Articles welcomed for review include those reporting basic research and clinical applications of therapeutic plasma exchange, therapeutic cytapheresis, therapeutic absorption, blood component collection and transfusion, donor recruitment and safety, administration of hemapheresis centers, and innovative applications of hemapheresis technology. Experimental studies, clinical trials, case reports, and concise reviews will be welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信