Objective:To compare the effectiveness and safety profile of centrifugal and membrane plasma separation model in artificial liver therapy with a dual plasma molecular adsorption system (DPMAS).Method:A retrospective study was conducted. Data of inpatients with liver failure who were treated with DPMAS therapy in the Liver Disease Center of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, from October 2022 to June 2024 were included. Clinical data such as demographic characteristics, etiology, DPMAS treatment-related indicators (including plasma separation method, vascular access, frequency of treatment, treatment duration, type of anticoagulant drugs, and membrane rupture condition), and laboratory test indicators before and after DPMAS treatment were collected. Categorical variables were compared by the χ2 test. Continuous variables were compared using a t-test or a non-parametric test between groups. Result:Data of 232 cases with liver failure who received artificial liver therapy with DPMAS were included. A total of 473 times DPMAS treatment was given. The average age was 50 years old, and males accounted for 82.3%. Centrifugal plasma separation was the initial DPMAS treatment in 176 (75.9%) cases, while membrane plasma separation was used in 56 cases (24.1%). The most common vascular access for DPMAS treatment was the internal jugular vein. The most commonly used anticoagulant was unfractionated heparin. The treatment duration of DPMAS was significantly higher with centrifugal separation than that with membrane separation ( P<0.001). Hemoglobin levels (mean before and after treatment in the centrifugal: 112.8 g/L vs. 106.3 g/L, P<0.001; mean before and after treatment in the membrane group: 108.4 g/L vs. 103.3 g/L, P<0.001), red blood cell count (mean before and after treatment in the centrifugal group: 3.7×10 9/L vs. 3.5×10 9/L, P<0.001; mean before and after treatment in the membrane group: 3.5×10 9/L vs. 3.3×10 9/L, P<0.001) and platelet count (mean before and after treatment in the centrifugal group: 134.5×10 9/L vs. 119.6×10 9/L, P<0.001; mean before and after treatment in the membrane group: 120.7 ×10 9/L vs. 97.3 ×10 9/L, P<0.001) were slightly decreased following initial DPMAS treatment in both groups. The decrease in platelets was significantly lower in centrifugal separation than that in membrane separation (median: 10.4% vs. 17.0%; P=0.003). There was no statistically significant difference observed in the proportion of puncture site bleeding in terms of plasma separation-related adverse events between the two groups, but plasma separator membrane rupture occurred two times in the DPMAS treatment. Conclusion:Centrifugal and membrane separation, both with DPMAS therapy, can cause a slight decrease in hemoglobin, red blood cell count, and platelets in patients with liver failure. Membrane separation causes a larger drop in platelets than centrifugal plasma separation. The operational convenience of medical personnel, the risk of membrane rupture, the coagulation markers, the patient's vascular condition, and other factors should be comprehensively considered when choosing the plasma separation model.

Objective:To retrospectively analyze the dual plasma molecular adsorption system (DPMAS) treatment technology and the laboratory data before and after treatment in patients with liver failure and refractory hyperbilirubinemia, so as to provide a clinical basis for the prediction and prevention of common related complications.Method:A retrospective study was conducted on 161 cases with liver failure and 68 cases with refractory hyperbilirubinemia who underwent DPMAS treatment in our department from October 2022 to July 2024. The general clinical data characteristics, DPMAS treatment status, DPMAS-related complications, and changes in important laboratory indicators before and after the initial DPMAS treatment in both patient groups were analyzed.Results:Among the 229 enrolled cases, 82.53% were male, and the median age was 50 years. The cause of liver failure was hepatitis B virus infection in 84.47%, while hepatitis B accounted for only 51.47% in the other group. There were significant differences in platelets, creatinine, coagulation function, and inflammatory factor-related indicators between the two groups at baseline. The total number of DPMAS treatments given was 471 times. The proportion of albumin used in the initial stage of treatment was significantly higher in patients with refractory hyperbilirubinemia than that in the liver failure group, while the proportion of plasma used in the liver failure group was significantly higher ( P<0.001). The most commonly used anticoagulation regimen was unfractionated heparin. A combined anticoagulation therapy regimen was used in 9.3% of the refractory hyperbilirubinemia group. The internal jugular vein was selected in nearly half of the treated cases. A peripheral vascular access pathway was the treatment option in 31.2%. The proportion of centrifugal separation was significantly higher than that of membrane separation (76.22% vs. 23.78%). The incidence rate of DPMAS-related complications was 16%. The most common complication was bleeding, including bleeding at the puncture site (accounting for 32% of the total complications) and bleeding at non-puncture sites (12%), followed by hypotension (22%), allergic reactions (13%) and infections (11%), respectively. The indexes of hemoglobin, platelets, total bilirubin, and C-reactive protein were significantly decreased within 24-48 hours after DPMAS treatment in both groups of patients. The prothrombin time and international normalized ratio were significantly increased in the liver failure group, while fibrinogen was significantly reduced. Conclusion:DPMAS clinical application is generally safe in patients with liver disease. The most common complications are bleeding, hypotension, allergic reactions, and infections, which need to be paid special attention and timely intervention to ensure the safety profile of treatment.

Objective:To compare the effectiveness and safety profile of centrifugal and membrane plasma separation model in artificial liver therapy with a dual plasma molecular adsorption system (DPMAS).Method:A retrospective study was conducted. Data of inpatients with liver failure who were treated with DPMAS therapy in the Liver Disease Center of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, from October 2022 to June 2024 were included. Clinical data such as demographic characteristics, etiology, DPMAS treatment-related indicators (including plasma separation method, vascular access, frequency of treatment, treatment duration, type of anticoagulant drugs, and membrane rupture condition), and laboratory test indicators before and after DPMAS treatment were collected. Categorical variables were compared by the χ2 test. Continuous variables were compared using a t-test or a non-parametric test between groups. Result:Data of 232 cases with liver failure who received artificial liver therapy with DPMAS were included. A total of 473 times DPMAS treatment was given. The average age was 50 years old, and males accounted for 82.3%. Centrifugal plasma separation was the initial DPMAS treatment in 176 (75.9%) cases, while membrane plasma separation was used in 56 cases (24.1%). The most common vascular access for DPMAS treatment was the internal jugular vein. The most commonly used anticoagulant was unfractionated heparin. The treatment duration of DPMAS was significantly higher with centrifugal separation than that with membrane separation ( P<0.001). Hemoglobin levels (mean before and after treatment in the centrifugal: 112.8 g/L vs. 106.3 g/L, P<0.001; mean before and after treatment in the membrane group: 108.4 g/L vs. 103.3 g/L, P<0.001), red blood cell count (mean before and after treatment in the centrifugal group: 3.7×10 9/L vs. 3.5×10 9/L, P<0.001; mean before and after treatment in the membrane group: 3.5×10 9/L vs. 3.3×10 9/L, P<0.001) and platelet count (mean before and after treatment in the centrifugal group: 134.5×10 9/L vs. 119.6×10 9/L, P<0.001; mean before and after treatment in the membrane group: 120.7 ×10 9/L vs. 97.3 ×10 9/L, P<0.001) were slightly decreased following initial DPMAS treatment in both groups. The decrease in platelets was significantly lower in centrifugal separation than that in membrane separation (median: 10.4% vs. 17.0%; P=0.003). There was no statistically significant difference observed in the proportion of puncture site bleeding in terms of plasma separation-related adverse events between the two groups, but plasma separator membrane rupture occurred two times in the DPMAS treatment. Conclusion:Centrifugal and membrane separation, both with DPMAS therapy, can cause a slight decrease in hemoglobin, red blood cell count, and platelets in patients with liver failure. Membrane separation causes a larger drop in platelets than centrifugal plasma separation. The operational convenience of medical personnel, the risk of membrane rupture, the coagulation markers, the patient's vascular condition, and other factors should be comprehensively considered when choosing the plasma separation model.

Objective:To retrospectively analyze the dual plasma molecular adsorption system (DPMAS) treatment technology and the laboratory data before and after treatment in patients with liver failure and refractory hyperbilirubinemia, so as to provide a clinical basis for the prediction and prevention of common related complications.Method:A retrospective study was conducted on 161 cases with liver failure and 68 cases with refractory hyperbilirubinemia who underwent DPMAS treatment in our department from October 2022 to July 2024. The general clinical data characteristics, DPMAS treatment status, DPMAS-related complications, and changes in important laboratory indicators before and after the initial DPMAS treatment in both patient groups were analyzed.Results:Among the 229 enrolled cases, 82.53% were male, and the median age was 50 years. The cause of liver failure was hepatitis B virus infection in 84.47%, while hepatitis B accounted for only 51.47% in the other group. There were significant differences in platelets, creatinine, coagulation function, and inflammatory factor-related indicators between the two groups at baseline. The total number of DPMAS treatments given was 471 times. The proportion of albumin used in the initial stage of treatment was significantly higher in patients with refractory hyperbilirubinemia than that in the liver failure group, while the proportion of plasma used in the liver failure group was significantly higher ( P<0.001). The most commonly used anticoagulation regimen was unfractionated heparin. A combined anticoagulation therapy regimen was used in 9.3% of the refractory hyperbilirubinemia group. The internal jugular vein was selected in nearly half of the treated cases. A peripheral vascular access pathway was the treatment option in 31.2%. The proportion of centrifugal separation was significantly higher than that of membrane separation (76.22% vs. 23.78%). The incidence rate of DPMAS-related complications was 16%. The most common complication was bleeding, including bleeding at the puncture site (accounting for 32% of the total complications) and bleeding at non-puncture sites (12%), followed by hypotension (22%), allergic reactions (13%) and infections (11%), respectively. The indexes of hemoglobin, platelets, total bilirubin, and C-reactive protein were significantly decreased within 24-48 hours after DPMAS treatment in both groups of patients. The prothrombin time and international normalized ratio were significantly increased in the liver failure group, while fibrinogen was significantly reduced. Conclusion:DPMAS clinical application is generally safe in patients with liver disease. The most common complications are bleeding, hypotension, allergic reactions, and infections, which need to be paid special attention and timely intervention to ensure the safety profile of treatment.

Objeetive : The epidemiological characteristics of confirmed cases of the 2019 novel coronavirus diseases (COVID-19) which was reported in Wenzhou by February 28,2020 were described and analyzed to provide evidence for prevention and control measures in next stage. Methods: The field investigation method was employed on all suspected and confirmed cases. The data of time,spatial and population distribution, source of infection and detective routes of all confirmed cases of COVID-19 in Wenzhou were collected and extracted from the reports of field investigation and the National Diseases Prevention and Control Information System. Results: As of February 20,2020,504 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were diagnosed in Wenzhou, which included one death case. Among all 13 counties, the highest number of confirmed cases were distributed in Yueqing,Ruian and Lucheng. Among 504 cases, the male to female ratio was reported as 1.14:1. The youngest case was 2 years old while the oldest case was 93 years old. Most of the confirmed cases were among people between the ages of 25 and 64 years old. The most common occupation of the confirmed cases was businessman,which accounts for 29.76% (150 cases). Clinical symptoms of the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in Wenzhou occurred on January 4, 2020. Approximately 70% of cases had the first symptoms from January 19 to February 1. The daily number of new cases on January 24 and January 26 were the highest while the number of new cases per day declined significantly after February 2, and there were no new cases after February 14. Among all confirmed cases, the infection source of 61.71% cases were related to Wuhan. As of February 20, 2020, a total of 79 clusters were reported in Wenzhou, which involved 330 cases. Approximately 30% of confirmed cases came to hospitals unaccompanied by community staffs, and cases which confirmed after February 13 were basically found in central isolation locations or by grid checkers. Conclusions The main reason for the high case numbers of COVID-19 in Wenzhou, in Zhejiang province, was the high number of wenzhou citizens who work in Wuhan. Imported cases account for the most confirmed cases during the early period, while mainly confirmed cases were local cases during the middle and late periods. The outcomes suggest the prevention and control measures employed by Wenzhou government, which included closed-loop control and quantitative control, have achieved remarkable results and the epidemic of COVID-19 in Wenzhou has been initially controlled.