Objective:To explore the clinical significance of negative fluid balance and infection management in the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by severe novel coronavirus infection.Methods:A retrospective survey was conducted. Patients with ARDS caused by severe novel coronavirus infection who were hospitalized in the department of critical care medicine of the Third Affiliated Hospital of Gansu University of Chinese Medicine and received non-invasive ventilator assisted ventilation were selected as the research objects. The fluid intake and output of all patients were accurately counted every day, and the fluid intake of the next day was adjusted according to the output of the previous day. According to the fluid negative balance, and whether the hospital infection management measures were complied with during the treatment and inspection of the patients, 45 patients with a negative fluid balance of more than 200 mL/d and strict management of nosocomial infection were taken as the observation group, and 48 patients with a negative fluid balance of less than 200 mL/d and no strict management of nosocomial infection were taken as the control group. The general data, weaning success rate, endotracheal intubation rate, mortality, as well as laboratory indicators such as white blood cell count (WBC), procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP) after treatment were compared between the two groups.Results:There were no significant differences in gender (male: 51.1% vs. 52.1%), age (years old: 66.31±15.92 vs. 67.50±13.59), acute physiology and chronic health evalution Ⅱ (APACHEⅡ: 18.98±4.81 vs. 18.54±4.35) between the observation group and the control group (all P > 0.05), indicating that the baseline data were balanced and comparable. Compared with the control group, the weaning success rate of the observation group significantly increased [53.3% (24/45) vs. 31.2% (15/48), P = 0.031], endotracheal intubation rate significantly decreased [22.2% (10/45) vs. 43.8% (21/48), P = 0.028], mortality significantly reduced [20.0% (9/45) vs. 41.7% (20/48), P = 0.024], laboratory indicators WBC, PCT and CRP levels were significantly reduced [WBC (×10 9/L): 8.085±4.136 vs. 16.898±7.733, CRP (mg/L): 82.827±52.680 vs. 150.679±74.625, PCT (μg/L): 3.142±2.323 vs. 7.539±5.939, all P < 0.01]. Conclusion:Fluid negative balance and infection management have significant clinical significance in the treatment of severe novel coronavirus infection with ARDS.

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 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.