Therapeutic Plasma Exchange for Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: A Randomized Pilot Study Comparing Standard- and High-Volume Protocols in a Resource-Limited Setting.

IF 1.2
Amany Sholkamy, Ahmed Fayed, Sanaa A Khalil, Amr Osama Elsayed, Ahmad Mohamed Shenawy, Karim M Soliman, Rasha Ahmed Darwish
{"title":"Therapeutic Plasma Exchange for Acute and Acute-on-Chronic Liver Failure: A Randomized Pilot Study Comparing Standard- and High-Volume Protocols in a Resource-Limited Setting.","authors":"Amany Sholkamy, Ahmed Fayed, Sanaa A Khalil, Amr Osama Elsayed, Ahmad Mohamed Shenawy, Karim M Soliman, Rasha Ahmed Darwish","doi":"10.1002/1744-9987.70199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Acute liver failure (ALF) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) carry substantial short-term mortality. While liver transplantation is the definitive therapy, access is often delayed in settings reliant on living-donor transplantation, such as Egypt. Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) has emerged as a potential bridging strategy, but evidence from resource-limited health systems remains scarce.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a prospective randomized pilot study including 46 adults with ALF or ACLF at a tertiary center in Egypt. Participants were assigned to standard medical therapy (SMT; n = 15), standard-volume plasma exchange (SVPE; n = 16), or high-volume plasma exchange (HVPE; n = 15). SVPE involved exchange of 1.5-2.0 plasma volumes per session, whereas HVPE delivered 8-12 L/day for 3 consecutive days. All patients received guideline-based SMT. Changes in alanine aminotransferase (ALT), total bilirubin, international normalized ratio (INR), and MELD-Na score were evaluated alongside procedure-related complications and 90-day mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both TPE strategies produced greater improvements in ALT, total bilirubin, INR, and MELD-Na compared with SMT alone. HVPE achieved the largest reduction in MELD-Na but was associated with higher rates of catheter-related infection and neurological complications. SVPE demonstrated a more favorable safety-effectiveness profile. Ninety-day mortality was highest with SMT and lower in both TPE groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a resource-limited tertiary setting, protocolized TPE is feasible and may improve short-term outcomes in ALF and ACLF. SVPE may represent a safer and more scalable bridging strategy when immediate access to liver transplantation is limited.</p>","PeriodicalId":94253,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis : official peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Apheresis, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/1744-9987.70199","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Acute liver failure (ALF) and acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) carry substantial short-term mortality. While liver transplantation is the definitive therapy, access is often delayed in settings reliant on living-donor transplantation, such as Egypt. Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) has emerged as a potential bridging strategy, but evidence from resource-limited health systems remains scarce.

Methods: We conducted a prospective randomized pilot study including 46 adults with ALF or ACLF at a tertiary center in Egypt. Participants were assigned to standard medical therapy (SMT; n = 15), standard-volume plasma exchange (SVPE; n = 16), or high-volume plasma exchange (HVPE; n = 15). SVPE involved exchange of 1.5-2.0 plasma volumes per session, whereas HVPE delivered 8-12 L/day for 3 consecutive days. All patients received guideline-based SMT. Changes in alanine aminotransferase (ALT), total bilirubin, international normalized ratio (INR), and MELD-Na score were evaluated alongside procedure-related complications and 90-day mortality.

Results: Both TPE strategies produced greater improvements in ALT, total bilirubin, INR, and MELD-Na compared with SMT alone. HVPE achieved the largest reduction in MELD-Na but was associated with higher rates of catheter-related infection and neurological complications. SVPE demonstrated a more favorable safety-effectiveness profile. Ninety-day mortality was highest with SMT and lower in both TPE groups.

Conclusions: In a resource-limited tertiary setting, protocolized TPE is feasible and may improve short-term outcomes in ALF and ACLF. SVPE may represent a safer and more scalable bridging strategy when immediate access to liver transplantation is limited.

血浆置换治疗急性和急性伴慢性肝衰竭:在资源有限的情况下比较标准和大容量方案的随机试验研究
背景:急性肝衰竭(ALF)和急性伴慢性肝衰竭(ACLF)具有大量的短期死亡率。虽然肝移植是最终的治疗方法,但在依赖活体供体移植的环境中,如埃及,获得肝移植往往会延迟。治疗性血浆交换(TPE)已成为一种潜在的过渡性策略,但来自资源有限的卫生系统的证据仍然很少。方法:我们在埃及的一家三级医疗中心进行了一项前瞻性随机试点研究,包括46名患有ALF或ACLF的成年人。参与者被分配到标准药物治疗(SMT, n = 15),标准容量血浆置换(SVPE, n = 16),或高容量血浆置换(HVPE, n = 15)。SVPE每次交换1.5-2.0血浆量,而HVPE连续3天每天交换8-12 L。所有患者均接受基于指南的SMT治疗。评估丙氨酸转氨酶(ALT)、总胆红素、国际标准化比值(INR)和MELD-Na评分的变化以及手术相关并发症和90天死亡率。结果:与单独SMT相比,两种TPE策略在ALT、总胆红素、INR和MELD-Na方面都有更大的改善。HVPE最大程度地降低了MELD-Na,但与较高的导管相关感染和神经系统并发症发生率相关。SVPE表现出更有利的安全性和有效性。SMT组90天死亡率最高,TPE组均较低。结论:在资源有限的三级环境中,协议化TPE是可行的,可以改善ALF和ACLF的短期预后。当立即获得肝移植的机会有限时,SVPE可能是一种更安全、更可扩展的桥接策略。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书