Comparative analysis of centrifugal and membrane double plasma molecular adsorption systems combined with low-dose plasma exchange in the treatment of liver failure
10.13303/j.cjbt.issn.1004-549x.2026.07.007
- VernacularTitle:离心式及膜式双重血浆分子吸附系统联合低剂量血浆置换治疗肝衰竭的对比分析
- Author:
Yan HU
1
;
Bangqiang ZHU
1
;
Haijing WANG
1
;
Peng YANG
1
;
Wei XU
1
;
Maohong BIAN
1
;
Junfei ZHANG
2
;
Zhen DA
3
;
Yujie DIAO
1
Author Information
1. Department of Blood Transfusion, the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230032, China
2. Infectious Diseases Department, the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei 230032, China
3. Shannan People′s Hospital, Clinical Laboratory, Shannan 856000, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
liver failure;
double plasma molecular adsorption system;
centrifugation;
membrane;
plasma exchange
- From:
Chinese Journal of Blood Transfusion
2026;39(7):859-866
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of centrifugal and membrane double plasma molecular adsorption systems (DPMAS) combined with low-dose plasma exchange in the treatment of liver failure. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 60 patients with liver failure treated in our hospital from April 2024 to June 2025. Based on different plasma separation methods, they were divided into the centrifugal DPMAS group (n=30) and the conventional membrane DPMAS group (n=30). The operational parameters, laboratory indicators, and adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. Results: Under the same plasma volume for adsorption and exchange (P>0.05), the centrifugal group showed lower total circulating blood volume, total blood flow rate, and treatment duration compared to the membrane group [10 794 (9 532, 12 637) vs 19 000 (19 000, 21 000) mL, 60 (60, 65) vs 125 (120, 130) mL/min, 169 (141, 193) vs 207 (183, 210) min, P<0.001]. The centrifugal group also had a lower rate of central venous catheter use [(24/30, 80.00%) vs (30/30, 100.00%), P=0.024] and required more calcium supplementation due to sodium citrate anticoagulation [6 (6, 8) vs 2 (2, 2) g, P<0.001]. No significant changes were observed in WBC, Hb, HCT, and PLT levels before and after treatment with the centrifugal group (P>0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in WBC levels before and after membrane group treatment (P=0.199), but the values of Hb, HCT, and PLT showed significant decreases post-treatment compared to pre-treatment [106.50 (102.75, 126.75) vs 123.00 (109.75, 132.00) g/L, 33.20 (29.90, 34.92) vs 34.85 (31.55, 37.52)%, 85.00 (43.25, 139.50) vs 93.00 (61.50, 145.00)×10
/L, P<0.05]. There was no significant difference in coagulation function indexes before and after treatment with centrifugal group (P>0.05). The membrane group showed reduction in fibrinogen (Fib) levels post-treatment [1.50 (1.20, 1.60) vs 1.60 (1.25, 1.80) g/L, P=0.033]. Both groups demonstrated significant decreases in total bilirubin (TBil) and direct bilirubin (DBil) levels after treatment (centrifugal group: 194.70 (107.50, 276.00) vs 239.15 (173.00, 304.17) μmol/L, 101.00 (64.00, 182.30) vs 157.00 (101.00, 195.00) μmol/L; membrane group: 211.50 (118.00, 240.00) vs 263.50 (204.75, 314.00) μmol/L, 188.00 (122.75, 232.25) vs 219.00 (178.50, 267.25) μmol/L, P<0.05]. The incidence of catheter-related complications was lower in the centrifugal group [(2/30, 6.67%) vs (8/30, 26.67%), P=0.038]. Conclusion: The centrifugal DPMAS system demonstrates advantages such as lower blood flow velocity requirements, shorter treatment duration, minimal impact on platelets, and reduced adverse event rates, indicating promising clinical applications.
