{"title":"标准CRRT机使用设计辅助线治疗DFPP的有效性和安全性","authors":"Fang Wang, Li Lin, Xiankun Sun, Xue Tang, Zhiwen Chen, Ling Zhang","doi":"10.1002/jca.70021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>The demand for double-filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) in clinical settings is growing steadily, yet the range and availability of specialized equipment designed to support DFPP are relatively limited. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a designed auxiliary line for DFPP treatment using standard continuous renal replacement treatment (CRRT) machines. This prospective self-controlled study was conducted between May 2021 and April 2024. Patients who underwent DFPP treatment using both specialized DFPP machines and standard CRRT machines (using designed auxiliary line) were enrolled in the study. DFPP sessions were divided into the specialized DFPP machine group and the standard CRRT machine group. The rates of completed DFPP treatments, DFPP cost, circuit clotting, hypotension, anaphylaxis, hypocalcemia, and nurse operating time were compared. A total of 440 DFPP sessions were performed for 80 patients, with 330 (75.0%) sessions in the specialized DFPP machine group and 110 (25.0%) in the standard CRRT machine group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the completed DFPP treatment rate (89.4% vs. 88.2%, <i>p</i> = 0.724), circuit clotting (8.2% vs. 7.3%, <i>p</i> = 0.760), anaphylaxis (12.7% vs. 11.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.803), hypotension (10.6% vs. 9.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.650), hypocalcemia (17.3% vs. 20.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.519), and nurse operation time (35.08 ± 2.27 min vs. 36.62 ± 1.94 min, <i>p</i> = 0.082). However, the cost per DFPP session in the standard CRRT machine group was lower than in the specialized DFPP machine (976.81 ± 14.38 $ vs. 1007.43 ± 35.30 $, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Standard CRRT machines can effectively and safely perform DFPP treatment using a specially designed auxiliary line, which is more cost-effective. Even in primary hospitals without specialized DFPP machines, CRRT machines can be used to perform DFPP treatment.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15390,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Apheresis","volume":"40 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and Safety of Using Designed Auxiliary Lines in Standard CRRT Machines for DFPP Treatment\",\"authors\":\"Fang Wang, Li Lin, Xiankun Sun, Xue Tang, Zhiwen Chen, Ling Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jca.70021\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>The demand for double-filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) in clinical settings is growing steadily, yet the range and availability of specialized equipment designed to support DFPP are relatively limited. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a designed auxiliary line for DFPP treatment using standard continuous renal replacement treatment (CRRT) machines. This prospective self-controlled study was conducted between May 2021 and April 2024. Patients who underwent DFPP treatment using both specialized DFPP machines and standard CRRT machines (using designed auxiliary line) were enrolled in the study. DFPP sessions were divided into the specialized DFPP machine group and the standard CRRT machine group. The rates of completed DFPP treatments, DFPP cost, circuit clotting, hypotension, anaphylaxis, hypocalcemia, and nurse operating time were compared. A total of 440 DFPP sessions were performed for 80 patients, with 330 (75.0%) sessions in the specialized DFPP machine group and 110 (25.0%) in the standard CRRT machine group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the completed DFPP treatment rate (89.4% vs. 88.2%, <i>p</i> = 0.724), circuit clotting (8.2% vs. 7.3%, <i>p</i> = 0.760), anaphylaxis (12.7% vs. 11.8%, <i>p</i> = 0.803), hypotension (10.6% vs. 9.1%, <i>p</i> = 0.650), hypocalcemia (17.3% vs. 20.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.519), and nurse operation time (35.08 ± 2.27 min vs. 36.62 ± 1.94 min, <i>p</i> = 0.082). However, the cost per DFPP session in the standard CRRT machine group was lower than in the specialized DFPP machine (976.81 ± 14.38 $ vs. 1007.43 ± 35.30 $, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Standard CRRT machines can effectively and safely perform DFPP treatment using a specially designed auxiliary line, which is more cost-effective. Even in primary hospitals without specialized DFPP machines, CRRT machines can be used to perform DFPP treatment.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Apheresis\",\"volume\":\"40 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-07\",\"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.70021\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Apheresis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jca.70021","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
摘要
临床环境中对双滤血浆置换(DFPP)的需求正在稳步增长,但用于支持DFPP的专用设备的范围和可用性相对有限。我们的目的是评估使用标准连续肾替代治疗(CRRT)机器设计的DFPP治疗辅助线的有效性和安全性。这项前瞻性自我对照研究于2021年5月至2024年4月进行。同时使用专业DFPP机和标准CRRT机(使用设计的辅助线)进行DFPP治疗的患者被纳入研究。DFPP会议分为专业DFPP机床组和标准CRRT机床组。比较DFPP治疗完成率、DFPP费用、循环凝血、低血压、过敏反应、低钙血症和护士手术时间。80例患者共进行了440次DFPP治疗,其中330次(75.0%)在专门的DFPP机器组,110次(25.0%)在标准的CRRT机器组。两组患者DFPP完成率(89.4% vs. 88.2%, p = 0.724)、循环凝血(8.2% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.760)、过敏反应(12.7% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.803)、低血压(10.6% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.650)、低血钙(17.3% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.519)、护理操作时间(35.08±2.27 min vs. 36.62±1.94 min, p = 0.082)差异均无统计学意义。然而,标准CRRT机器组的每次DFPP治疗费用低于专业DFPP机器组(976.81±14.38美元比1007.43±35.30美元,p < 0.001)。标准CRRT机器可以使用特别设计的辅助线有效安全地进行DFPP处理,更具成本效益。即使在没有专门的DFPP设备的基层医院,也可以使用CRRT设备进行DFPP治疗。
Efficacy and Safety of Using Designed Auxiliary Lines in Standard CRRT Machines for DFPP Treatment
The demand for double-filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP) in clinical settings is growing steadily, yet the range and availability of specialized equipment designed to support DFPP are relatively limited. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a designed auxiliary line for DFPP treatment using standard continuous renal replacement treatment (CRRT) machines. This prospective self-controlled study was conducted between May 2021 and April 2024. Patients who underwent DFPP treatment using both specialized DFPP machines and standard CRRT machines (using designed auxiliary line) were enrolled in the study. DFPP sessions were divided into the specialized DFPP machine group and the standard CRRT machine group. The rates of completed DFPP treatments, DFPP cost, circuit clotting, hypotension, anaphylaxis, hypocalcemia, and nurse operating time were compared. A total of 440 DFPP sessions were performed for 80 patients, with 330 (75.0%) sessions in the specialized DFPP machine group and 110 (25.0%) in the standard CRRT machine group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the completed DFPP treatment rate (89.4% vs. 88.2%, p = 0.724), circuit clotting (8.2% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.760), anaphylaxis (12.7% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.803), hypotension (10.6% vs. 9.1%, p = 0.650), hypocalcemia (17.3% vs. 20.0%, p = 0.519), and nurse operation time (35.08 ± 2.27 min vs. 36.62 ± 1.94 min, p = 0.082). However, the cost per DFPP session in the standard CRRT machine group was lower than in the specialized DFPP machine (976.81 ± 14.38 $ vs. 1007.43 ± 35.30 $, p < 0.001). Standard CRRT machines can effectively and safely perform DFPP treatment using a specially designed auxiliary line, which is more cost-effective. Even in primary hospitals without specialized DFPP machines, CRRT machines can be used to perform DFPP treatment.
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.