Clinical efficacy of low-dose plasma exchange combined with double plasma molecular absorption system/hemoperfusion in treatment of acute-on-chronic liver failure

Jie LU; Dingchun LI; Ye LIU; Linna YUAN; Zhiwen DUAN; Wu LI

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2022.11.017

Volume 38 Issue 11

Nov. 2022

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Abstract

References

Article Navigation > Journal of Clinical Hepatology > 2022 > 38(11): 2526-2531

PDF( 1882 KB)

Clinical efficacy of low-dose plasma exchange combined with double plasma molecular absorption system/hemoperfusion in treatment of acute-on-chronic liver failure

DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2022.11.017

Department of Infection and Liver Diseases, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming 650032, China

Research funding:

National Natural Science Foundation of China (82160801);

Yunnan Province Famous Doctor Project (Yunrenweifa (2020)20, RLMY20200015);

Yunnan Provincial Department of Science and Technology -Applied Basic Research Joint Special Fund Project (2018FE001 (-214))

More Information

Corresponding author: LI Wu, liwukm@qq.com(ORCID: 0000-0002-1222-3629)
Received Date: 2022-04-25
Accepted Date: 2022-06-20
Published Date: 2022-11-20

Abstract

Abstract

Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy of low-dose plasma exchange (PE) combined with artificial liver in the treatment of acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) and its effect on mortality rate after stratification. Methods A total of 272 ACLF patients who were admitted to Department of Infection and Hepatology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, from January 2018 to December 2020 were enrolled and divided into low-dose PE+double plasma molecular absorption system (DPMAS)/hemoperfusion (HP) group (n=190) and medical treatment group(n=82). Laboratory markers were collected before and after treatment, and clinical outcome was compared between the two groups; stratified analysis (early stage, early-middle stage, late stage or types A, B, C) was performed for the two groups according to Diagnostic and treatment guidelines for liver failure (2018 edition), and all patients were followed up to observe general status and death at 12 weeks (short-term) and 48 weeks (long-term) after discharge. The independent samples t-test was used for comparison of normally distributed continuous data between two groups, and the paired samples t-test was used for comparison before and after treatment; the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of non-normally distributed continuous data between two groups, and the Wilcoxon test was used for comparison before and after treatment; the chi-square test was used for comparison of categorical data between groups. Results Both low-dose PE combined with DPMAS/HP and medical treatment alone could reduce the levels of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase, total bilirubin (TBil), and blood ammonia and increase the level of albumin (Alb), and both groups had significant changes in these indices after treatment (all P < 0.05). Compared with medical treatment alone, low-dose PE combined with DPMAS/HP better reduced ALT, TBil, and blood ammonia and improved Alb, with significant changes in these indices after treatment (all P < 0.05). Low-dose PE combined with DPMAS/HP could significantly reduce bile acid, international normalized ratio, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, and MELD score and increase platelet-to-white blood cell ratio (all P < 0.05), while medical treatment alone could not improve the above indices (all P > 0.05). Compared with medical treatment alone, low-dose PE combined with DPMAS/HP could reduce the short-term mortality rate of ACLF patients, especially the short-term mortality rate of ACLF patients with early-stage, early-middle-stage or type A ACLF, and there were significant differences between the two groups (all P < 0.05). In the low-dose PE+DPMAS/HP group, the patients with early-stage ACLF had significantly lower short- and long-term mortality rates than those with late-stage ACLF, and the patients with type A ACLF had significantly lower short- and long-term mortality rates than those with type C ACLF (all P < 0.05). Conclusion Low-dose PE combined with DPMAS/HP has good clinical efficacy and can effectively reduce the short-term mortality rate of ACLF, especially the short-term mortality rate of patients with early-stage, early-middle-stage, or type A ACLF.
- Acute-On-Chronic Liver Failure,
- Plasma Exchange,
- Liver, Artificial,
- Treatment Outcome

FullText(HTML)

原发性胆汁性胆管炎(PBC)是一种慢性进行性的胆汁淤积性肝病，90%以上的患者血清抗线粒体抗体(AMA)阳性，部分患者血清IgM水平升高，随着病情的缓解而有所下降^[1]，因此明确IgM水平与PBC发生、发展及转归的关系，对于指导PBC治疗及预后评估具有重要的临床意义。

1. 资料与方法

1.1 研究对象

选取2010年1月—2020年1月于解放军总医院第五医学中心就诊的熊去氧胆酸(UDCA)初治PBC患者637例，所有患者均具有治疗1年以上的临床数据。纳入标准：(1)符合PBC诊断标准^[2-3]；(2)UDCA规范治疗(13~15 mg/kg)1年以上。排除标准：(1)合并其他的慢性肝病；(2)肝移植术后；(3)合并其他免疫性疾病、恶性肿瘤及感染性疾病；(4)资料不完整。

1.2 研究方法

采用回顾性分析的方法，采集患者性别、年龄及入院基线的血液学指标、生化指标、免疫学指标及影像学指标；并根据巴黎标准进行UDCA疗效判定^[4-5]，将PBC患者分为UDCA完全应答组和UDCA应答不良组(包括无应答及部分应答)。

1.3 统计学方法

应用SPSS 22.0软件进行统计学分析。计量资料进行S-K正态性检验，符合正态分布的计量资料用x±s表示，两组间比较采用独立样本t检验；非正态分布的计量资料用M(P₂₅~P₇₅)表示，两组间比较采用Mann-Whitney U检验。计数资料两组间比较采用χ²检验。绘制受试者工作特征曲线(ROC曲线)，根据ROC曲线下面积(AUC)评估其预测效能，计算约登指数确定最佳临界值。亚组分析使用Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel(CMH)检验，并绘制风险值森林图。P＜0.05为差异有统计学意义。

2. 结果

2.1 一般情况

本研究共纳入PBC患者637例，其中男126例，女511例，平均56岁(50~66岁)，基线IgM升高者357例(56.0%)，UDCA完全应答者436例(68.4%)，其他基线资料见表 1。

表 1 PBC患者基线特征及UDCA治疗1年后的应答情况

Table 1. Characteristics of patients with PBC at baseline and biochemical response to UDCA after 1 year of treatment

基线特征	数值
性别[例(%)]
男	126(19.8)
女	511(80.2)
发病年龄(岁)	56(50~66)
肝硬化[例(%)]	487(76.5)
PLT(×10⁹/L)	121(77~182)
Alb(g/L)	35(31~38)
TBil(μmol/L)	20.7(13.8~38.2)
ALT(U/L)	53(27~95)
AST(U/L)	69(41~105)
ALP(U/L)	247(158~432)
GGT(U/L)	163(81~374)
TBA(μmol/L)	28(12~65)
ChE(U/L)	4405(2922~5947)
TC(mmol/L)	4.4(3.3~5.8)
PT(s)	11.6(10.5~12.9)
INR	1.01(0.94~1.12)
IgA(g/L)	2.68(1.84~3.87)
IgG(g/L)	15.67(12.83~20.41)
IgM(g/L)	2.76(1.61~4.43)
IgM＞ULN[例(%)]	357(56.0)
ANA阳性[例(%)]	469(73.6)
抗Sp100阳性[例(%)]	94(14.8)
抗Gp210阳性[例(%)]	218(34.2)
MRS^[6]	5.84±1.45
Globe评分^[7]	1.21(0.34~2.11)
UK-PBC评分^[8]	0.037(0.015~0.112)
UDCA治疗1年[例(%)]
完全应答	436(68.4)
应答不良	201(31.6)
注：TBA，总胆汁酸；ChE，胆碱酯酶。

下载: 导出CSV

| 显示表格

2.2 UDCA不同疗效的基线临床资料比较

按照UDCA治疗应答情况，637例患者中436例发生完全应答，201例为应答不良。性别分布中，完全应答组与应答不良组分布无统计学意义(P值均＞0.05)，基线存在肝硬化的患者UDCA应答率更高(78.9% vs 71.1%，P=0.032)，生化指标中，TBil、AST、ALP、TBA和TC在两组间存在统计学差异(P值均＜0.001)。免疫指标中，应答不良组IgA、IgM水平及抗Gp210阳性率均较高(P值均＜0.05)。预后风险评分中，应答不良组MRS、Globe评分、UK-PBC评分均高于完全应答组(P值均＜0.001)(表 2)。

表 2 UDCA治疗完全应答与应答不良患者基线指标及风险评分差异

Table 2. Differences of baseline characteristics and risk scores between PBC with complete response and poor response to UDCA treatment

指标	UDCA完全应答组(n=436)	UDCA应答不良组(n=201)	统计值	P值
性别[例(%)]			χ²=3.112	0.078
男	78(17.9)	48(23.9)
女	358(82.1)	153(76.1)
年龄(岁)	57(50~66)	54(49~65)	Z=-1.447	0.148
肝硬化[例(%)]	344(78.9)	143(71.1)	χ²=4.596	0.032
TBil(μmol/L)	17.5(12.1~26.1)	39.2(20.6~62.7)	Z=-9.932	＜0.001
AST(U/L)	55(38~87)	99(69~135)	Z=-8.931	＜0.001
ALP(U/L)	201(150~340)	390(237~599)	Z=-8.361	＜0.001
TBA(μmol/L)	22(9~43)	54(20~121)	Z=-7.836	＜0.001
TC(mmol/L)	4.2(3.2~5.3)	5.1(3.5~7.1)	Z=-4.694	＜0.001
IgA(g/L)	2.55(1.75~3.61)	3.01(2.01~4.38)	Z=-3.242	0.001
IgG(g/L)	15.59(12.63~20.50)	15.73(12.97~20.16)	Z=-0.227	0.821
IgM(g/L)	2.60(1.56~4.30)	3.33(1.78~5.02)	Z=-2.115	0.034
ANA阳性[例(%)]	313(71.8)	156(77.6)	χ²=2.402	0.121
抗Sp100阳性[例(%)]	66(15.1)	28(13.9)	χ²=0.159	0.690
抗Gp210阳性[例(%)]	127(29.1)	91(45.3)	χ²=15.931	＜0.001
MRS	5.68±1.45	6.18±1.41	t=4.092	＜0.001
Globe评分	0.83(0.14~1.66)	2.09(1.29~2.81)	Z=-10.910	＜0.001
UK-PBC评分	0.025(0.012~0.058)	0.128(0.050~0.324)	Z=-11.646	＜0.001

下载: 导出CSV

| 显示表格

2.3 不同IgM水平PBC患者临床特征及UDCA疗效比较

2.3.1 IgM升高与IgM正常PBC患者基线特征及治疗应答差异

按照IgM升高与IgM正常将PBC患者分为两组，分析患者基线特征及治疗应答。性别分布、年龄、肝硬化占比在两组中比较差异均无统计学意义(P值均＞0.05)；生化指标中，AST、ALP、TC在IgM升高组显著高于IgM正常组(P值均＜0.001)；免疫指标中，IgA、IgG水平及抗Gp210阳性率在IgM升高组显著高于IgM正常组(P值均＜0.05)，但两组在UDCA治疗应答方面并无统计学差异(P＞0.05)(表 3)。

表 3 IgM升高与IgM正常的PBC患者基线特征及治疗应答差异

Table 3. Differences of baseline characteristics and biochemical response to UDCA treatment between IgM-normal and IgM-elevated PBC

指标	IgM升高组(n=357)	IgM正常组(n=280)	统计值	P值
性别[例(%)]			χ²=0.525	0.469
男	67(18.8)	59(21.1)
女	290(81.2)	221(78.9)
年龄(岁)	55(49~65)	57(50~67)	Z=-1.776	0.076
肝硬化[例(%)]	275(77.0)	212(75.7)	χ²=0.151	0.698
TBil(μmol/L)	20.4(14.0~38.2)	21.1(13.6~38.6)	Z=-0.066	0.947
AST(U/L)	75(45~106)	55(35~100)	Z=-3.774	＜0.001
ALP(U/L)	275(173~478)	201(144~347)	Z=-5.063	＜0.001
TBA(μmol/L)	29(13~60)	28(11~70)	Z=-0.587	0.558
TC(mmol/L)	4.8(3.6~6.2)	4.2(3.1~5.3)	Z=-4.344	＜0.001
IgA(g/L)	2.83(1.96~3.91)	2.53(1.70~3.82)	Z=-2.051	0.040
IgG(g/L)	16.88(14.00~21.42)	14.04(11.87~18.50)	Z=-6.144	＜0.001
ANA阳性[例(%)]	270(75.6)	199(71.1)	χ²=1.680	0.195
抗Sp100阳性[例(%)]	56(15.7)	38(13.6)	χ²=0.558	0.455
抗Gp210阳性[例(%)]	152(42.6)	66(23.6)	χ²=25.180	＜0.001
MRS	5.78±1.46	5.91±1.43	t=-1.071	0.284
Globe评分	1.18(0.29~2.12)	1.27(0.36~2.07)	Z=-0.433	0.665
UK-PBC评分	0.038(0.015~0.114)	0.037(0.015~0.108)	Z=-0.416	0.677
UDCA治疗1年[例(%)]			χ²=2.580	0.108
完全应答	235(65.8)	201(71.8)
应答不良	122(34.2)	79(28.2)

下载: 导出CSV

| 显示表格

2.3.2 应用ROC曲线确定IgM最佳临界值

将各项基线指标进行ROC曲线分析(图 1，表 4)，结果显示预测UDCA治疗1年后应答不良的生化指标包括TBil、AST、ALP、TBA、TC，免疫指标包括IgA、IgM、IgG，计算IgM最佳临界值为1.5×ULN。

图 1 PBC患者基线指标预测UDCA治疗1年后应答不良的ROC曲线

Figure 1. ROC curves of characteristics at baseline in predicting poor response to UDCA after 1 year of treatment

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 4 PBC患者基线指标预测UDCA治疗1年后应答不良的AUC

Table 4. AUC values of characteristics at baseline in predicting poor biochemical response to UDCA after 1 year of treatment

指标	AUC	95%CI
TBil	0.745	0.709~0.778
AST	0.720	0.683~0.755
ALP	0.706	0.669~0.741
TBA	0.693	0.655~0.728
TC	0.615	0.576~0.653
IgA	0.576	0.537~0.615
IgM	0.552	0.512~0.591
IgG	0.505	0.466~0.545

下载: 导出CSV

| 显示表格

2.3.3 分析不同IgM水平PBC患者基线特征及治疗应答差异

根据IgM预测UDCA应答不良的最佳临界值将患者分为IgM≥1.5×ULN及IgM＜1.5×ULN两组，性别分布、年龄、肝硬化占比在两组中比较差异均无统计学意义(P值均＞0.05)；IgM≥1.5×ULN组AST、ALP、TC显著高于IgM＜1.5×ULN组(P值均＜0.05)；IgM≥1.5×ULN组IgG水平及抗Gp210阳性率显著高于IgM＜1.5×ULN组(P值均＜0.001)。IgM≥1.5×ULN组经过UDCA治疗后发生应答不良患者显著高于IgM＜1.5×ULN组(38.3% vs 27.1%，P=0.003)(表 5)。

表 5 不同IgM水平PBC患者基线临床特征及UDCA疗效比较

Table 5. Comparison of baseline characteristics and the outcome of UDCA treatment between PBC with different levels of IgM

指标	IgM≥1.5×ULN组(n=253)	IgM＜1.5×ULN组(n=384)	统计值	P值
性别[例(%)]			χ²=0.038	0.846
男	51(20.2)	75(19.5)
女	202(79.8)	309(80.5)
年龄(岁)	56(49~65)	56(50~66)	Z=-1.077	0.281
肝硬化[例(%)]	195(77.1)	292(76.0)	χ²=0.090	0.764
TBil(μmol/L)	21.0(14.3~38.0)	20.5(13.6~39.7)	Z=-0.244	0.808
AST(U/L)	78(46~112)	61(38~99)	Z=-4.193	＜0.001
ALP(U/L)	288(179~492)	210(150~358)	Z=-5.044	＜0.001
TBA(μmol/L)	28(13~57)	28(10~70)	Z=-0.210	0.834
TC(mmol/L)	4.8(3.6~6.3)	4.3(3.2~5.5)	Z=-3.250	0.001
IgA(g/L)	2.81(1.90~3.85)	2.63(1.76~3.87)	Z=-1.021	0.307
IgG(g/L)	17.60(14.09~22.10)	14.89(12.15~19.32)	Z=-5.465	＜0.001
ANA阳性[例(%)]	192(75.9)	277(72.1)	χ²=1.107	0.293
抗Sp100阳性[例(%)]	44(17.4)	50(13.0)	χ²=2.316	0.128
抗Gp210阳性[例(%)]	116(45.8)	102(26.6)	χ²=25.204	＜0.001
MRS	5.71±1.43	5.92±1.46	t=-1.792	0.074
Globe评分	1.17(0.36~2.14)	1.28(0.29~2.07)	Z=-0.161	0.872
UK-PBC评分	0.038(0.014~0.119)	0.037(0.015~0.109)	Z=-0.481	0.631
UDCA治疗1年[例(%)]			χ²=8.948	0.003
完全应答	156(61.7)	280(72.9)
应答不良	97(38.3)	104(27.1)

下载: 导出CSV

| 显示表格

2.4 不同IgM水平预测应答不良的风险分析森林图

对IgM≥1.5×ULN组及IgM＜1.5×ULN组两组的各项指标进行预测应答不良的风险值分析，结果显示IgM≥1.5×ULN组相对IgM＜1.5×ULN组预测整体应答不良的风险值为1.416 (95%CI：1.129~1.776, P=0.003)。亚组分析中，无肝硬化患者，IgM≥1.5×ULN预测应答不良风险值为1.821(95%CI：1.224~2.711, P=0.003)。其他情况详见图 2。

图 2 IgM≥1.5×ULN相对IgM＜1.5×ULN预测治疗应答情况亚组分析森林图

Figure 2. Forest plot for subgroup analysis by IgM≥1.5×ULN versus IgM < 1.5×ULN in predicting treatment response of UDCA

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

3. 讨论

IgM具有强大的杀菌、激活补体、免疫调理和凝集作用，通常出现在初次体液免疫应答的最早阶段，是连接固有免疫和获得性免疫的纽带，也参与某些自身免疫疾病和超敏反应的病理过程。PBC是一种器官特异性的自身免疫性疾病，IgM升高是PBC典型的血清学特征之一，但是其升高的机制至今尚未完全阐明，外源微生物的分子模拟、免疫耐受性的破坏、免疫功能紊乱可能是导致高IgM水平的重要原因^[9-10]，IgM在PBC疾病进程中可能发挥免疫调节及免疫损伤的双重作用^[9]。不同于PBC，自身免疫性肝炎(AIH)患者以IgG升高为主，其水平随着病情缓解而逐渐下降，IgG是AIH疾病转归的重要监测指标之一。作为PBC常规检测项目，IgM并未被国内外指南纳入诊疗和预后评估的指标。IgM在PBC发生、发展、疗效及转归中是否具有预测价值，目前尚缺乏大量的临床研究结果作为指导。

UDCA是PBC治疗的一线药物，可显著改善部分PBC患者非肝移植存活率^[11-12]，但仍有30%~40%的患者对UDCA治疗无应答，本研究中显示UDCA完全应答率为68.4%，对于这部分患者需要及时联合一种或两种二线药物来改善胆汁淤积以预防疾病进展^[13]。UDCA治疗可能影响IgM水平，研究^[14]发现UDCA能够显著降低细菌CpG诱导的总IgM和IgM-AMA的产生，但对IgG-AMA的水平却无影响。IgM与肝硬化相关症状和肝脏相关事件的发生关系密切，在UDCA联合苯扎贝特治疗过程中，不论ALP及GGT下降与否，当IgM水平持续异常时，患者的预后均较差，其生存期显著低于IgM水平正常化的患者，治疗过程中IgM水平的逐步正常化可能提示预后较好^[15]。对于UDCA不完全应答的PBC患者，在给予联合利妥昔单抗治疗后，IgM水平随着肝功能指标的好转而逐步下降^[16]。IgM正常化可作为长期预后的预测指标，但初始IgM正常患者IgM水平的变化情况及预测因素尚缺乏研究。在本研究中，UDCA治疗基线IgM平均水平为2.76 g/L，IgM升高的占比为56.0%，在UDCA完全应答组与应答不良组之间，基线IgM水平存在显著性差异(P=0.034)，进一步分析IgM升高与IgM正常组患者的临床特征及在UDCA治疗1年后的疗效差异，发现IgM正常组UDCA应答率高于IgM升高组(71.8% vs 65.8%)，但两组差异无统计学意义(P=0.108)，通过ROC曲线分析获得IgM预测UDCA治疗1年后应答不良风险的最佳临界值(1.5×ULN)，按最佳临界值进行分组后，结果显示IgM＜1.5×ULN组的PBC患者发生UDCA应答率显著高于IgM≥1.5×ULN组(72.9% vs 61.7%, P=0.003)，IgM≥1.5×ULN组发生UDCA应答不良风险是前者的1.416倍(95%CI: 1.129~1.776)，因此基线IgM水平可能有助于预测PBC治疗应答。

IgM是进展期PBC的危险因素，与PBC胆管损伤及纤维化密切相关。进展期PBC的肝组织中IgM表达水平显著升高^[17]，在胆道闭锁的患儿中，靶向胆管上皮细胞的IgM自身抗体能够激活补体并参与肝纤维化的发生，从而使疾病不断进展^[18-19]。在本研究中血清IgM升高组的PBC患者，其肝硬化占比也偏高，因是回顾性研究，患者缺乏UDCA治疗基线及治疗后的组织学证据，无法评估IgM与疾病进展、转归之间的相关性，今后尚需要进一步完善。

UDCA生化应答的PBC患者具有较好的预后，即使进展为肝硬化的患者，如仍处于代偿期，也可达到延长生存期、降低肝病相关病死率及肝移植需求的目标^[20]。MRS是一种常用的预测生存概率模型，最初用于筛选肝移植对象和确定肝移植手术时机^[6]，MRS对于失代偿期肝硬化的PBC患者也具有较强的预测性。UK-PBC评分^[8]及GLOBE评分^[7]是近年来被采用的PBC预后模型。在接受UDCA治疗的PBC患者中，MRS、UK-PBC评分和GLOBE评分对患者肝移植或死亡的风险预测均具有较好的准确性^[21]。本研究结果显示MRS、Globe评分、UK-PBC评分在UDCA完全应答组及应答不良组之间均具有显著性差异，提示UDCA完全应答组的非肝移植存活率均显著高于应答不良组，但在IgM升高组和正常组之间以及IgM≥1.5×ULN组和IgM＜1.5×ULN组之间，三种预测模型评分均无明显差异，这说明基线IgM水平还不能作为独立预测非肝移植存活率的指标。

总之，本研究结果提示基线IgM水平对于预测UDCA应答具有重要价值，基线IgM水平较高的PBC患者，治疗中应密切监测IgM水平，如持续异常，应及时联合二线药物治疗。

References(20)

References

[1]	HERNAEZ R, SOLÀ E, MOREAU R, et al. Acute-on-chronic liver failure: an update[J]. Gut, 2017, 66(3): 541-553. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312670.
[2]	ZHANG XL. Clinical study of combined non-biological artificial liver technology in the treatment of liver failure under the condition of blood stress[D]. Kunming: Kunming Medical University, 2018. 张秀灵. 血源紧张条件下组合型非生物人工肝技术治疗肝衰竭的临床研究[D]. 昆明: 昆明医科大学, 2018.
[3]	ZHANG XL, DUAN ZW, YANG RD, et al. Clinical study of plasma exchange combined with dual plasma molecular adsorption system in the treatment of patients with early and mid-stage liver failure under the condition of blood stress[J]. J Prac Hepatol, 2019, 22(2): 289-290. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5069.2019.02.034. 张秀灵, 段志文, 杨瑞东, 等. 血源紧张条件下血浆置换联合双重血浆分子吸附系统治疗早中期肝衰竭患者临床研究[J]. 实用肝脏病杂志, 2019, 22(2): 289-290. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5069.2019.02.034.
[4]	Liver Failure and Artificial Liver Group, Chinese Society of Infectious Diseases, Chinese Medical Association; Severe Liver Disease and Artificial Liver Group, Chinese Society of Hepatology, Chinese Medical Association. Guideline for diagnosis and treatment of liver failure(2018)[J]. J Clin Hepatol, 2019, 35(1): 38-44. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2019.01.007. 中华医学会感染病学分会肝衰竭与人工肝学组, 中华医学会肝病学分会重型肝病与人工肝学组. 肝衰竭诊治指南(2018年版)[J]. 临床肝胆病杂志, 2019, 35(1): 38-44. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2019.01.007.
[5]	Severe Liver Disease and Artificial Liver Group, Chinese Society of Hepatology, Chinese Medical Association. Expert consensus on clinical application of artificial liver and blood purification (2022 edition)[J]. J Clin Hepatol, 2022, 38(4): 767-775. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2022.04.007. 中华医学会肝病学分会重型肝病与人工肝学组. 人工肝血液净化技术临床应用专家共识(2022年版)[J]. 临床肝胆病杂志, 2022, 38(4): 767-775 DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2022.04.007.
[6]	FAN Q, LI Z, Liver transplantation for chronic acute liver failure[J]. Qgran Transplant, 2022, 13(3): 333-337. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-7445.2022.03.008. 范祺, 李照. 慢加急性肝衰竭的肝移植治疗[J]. 器官移植, 2022, 13(3): 333-337. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-7445.2022.03.008.
[7]	SUN KY, MAO JX, LIU Y, et al. Influencing factors of curative effect of plasma exchange in patients with HBV-related acute-on-chronic liver failure waiting for liver transplantation[J/CD]. Chin J Hepat Surg(Electronic Edition), 2022, 11(3): 252-257. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3232.2022.03.008. 孙克彦, 毛家玺, 刘业, 等. HBV相关性慢加急性肝衰竭等待肝移植患者血浆置换疗效影响因素[J/CD]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2022, 11(3): 252-257. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-3232.2022.03.008.
[8]	LARSEN FS, SCHMIDT LE, BERNSMEIER C, et al. High-volume plasma exchange in patients with acute liver failure: An open randomised controlled trial[J]. J Hepatol, 2016, 64(1): 69-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2015.08.018.
[9]	YUAN S, QIAN Y, TAN D, et al. Therapeutic plasma exchange: A prospective randomized trial to evaluate 2 strategies in patients with liver failure[J]. Transfus Apher Sci, 2018, 57(2): 253-258. DOI: 10.1016/j.transci.2018.02.001.
[10]	BJURSTEN LM, RASMUSSON L, OH S, et al. Titanium dioxide nanotubes enhance bone bonding in vivo[J]. J Biomed Mater Res A, 2010, 92(3): 1218-1224. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.a.32463.
[11]	YAO J, LI S, ZHOU L, et al. Therapeutic effect of double plasma molecular adsorption system and sequential half-dose plasma exchange in patients with HBV-related acute-on- chronic liver failure[J]. J Clin Apher, 2019, 34(4): 392-398. DOI: 10.1002/jca.21690.
[12]	SUN J, GUO H, YU X, et al. A neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio-based prognostic model to predict mortality in patients with HBV-related acute-on-chronic liver failure[J]. BMC Gastroenterol, 2021, 21(1): 422. DOI: 10.1186/s12876-021-02007-w.
[13]	CHIRIAC S, STANCIU C, SINGEAP AM, et al. Prognostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in cirrhotic patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure[J]. Turk J Gastroenterol, 2020, 31(12): 868-876. DOI: 10.5152/tjg.2020.19838.
[14]	JIE Y, GONG J, XIAO C, et al. Low platelet to white blood cell ratio indicates poor prognosis for acute-on-chronic liver failure[J]. Biomed Res Int, 2018, 2018: 7394904. DOI: 10.1155/2018/7394904.
[15]	YANG L, WU T, LI J, et al. Artificial liver treatment improves survival in patients with hepatitis B virus-related acute-on-chronic liver failure: A case-control matched analysis[J]. Hepatol Res, 2020, 50(6): 656-670. DOI: 10.1111/hepr.13497.
[16]	LIU H, ZHANG Q, LIU L, et al. Effect of artificial liver support system on short-term prognosis of patients with hepatitis B virus-related acute-on-chronic liver failure[J]. Artif Organs, 2020, 44(10): E434-E447. DOI: 10.1111/aor.13710.
[17]	GUO X, WU F, GUO W, et al. Comparison of plasma exchange, double plasma molecular adsorption system, and their combination in treating acute-on-chronic liver failure[J]. J Int Med Res, 2020, 48(6): 300060520932053. DOI: 10.1177/0300060520932053.
[18]	CHEN JJ, HUANG JR, YANG Q, et al. Plasma exchange-centered artificial liver support system in hepatitis B virus-related acute-on-chronic liver failure: a nationwide prospective multicenter study in China[J]. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int, 2016, 15(3): 275-281. DOI: 10.1016/s1499-3872(16)60084-x.
[19]	CHEN YY, LI H, XU BY, et al. Plasma exchange-based non-bioartificial liver support system improves the short-term outcomes of patients with hepatitis B virus-associated acute-on-chronic liver failure: A multicenter prospective cohort study[J]. Front Med (Lausanne), 2021, 8: 779744. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2021.779744.
[20]	TAN ZQ. Analysis of risk factors for the prognosis of patients with hepatitis B-related acute-on-chronic liver failure[D]. Nanchang: Nanchang University, 2021. 谭志强. 乙型肝炎相关慢加急性肝衰竭患者预后的危险因素分析[D]. 南昌: 南昌大学, 2021.

Relative Articles

[1]	Shuang ZHAO, Yuxuan ZHU, Yue LIU, Jing WANG, Qun LI, Minghui WANG, Qianqian DONG, Feifei FAN, Xiaofeng LIU. Influencing factors for rebleeding after endoscopic therapy in patients with liver cirrhosis receiving secondary prevention of gastroesophageal varices[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2024, 40(12): 2430-2440. doi: 10.12449/JCH241213
[2]	Zhipeng CHEN, Fang YIN. Influence of patent paraumbilical vein on the development of esophageal varices and esophageal variceal bleeding in liver cirrhosis: A protective factor or a risk factor?[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2022, 38(4): 918-922. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2022.04.036
[3]	Qingjuan HE, Yingxia FANG, Xuchen LIU, Zhongbin LI. Risk factors for rebleeding after emergency esophageal variceal ligation in patients with liver cirrhosis[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2022, 38(8): 1801-1805. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2022.08.016
[4]	Jia LIAN, Tao HAN, Huiling XIANG, Yankai YANG, Tinghong LI, Lei LIU, Baiguo XU, Lixia SUN, Fei WANG, Yanchao FU. Influencing factors of rebleeding after gastroscopy in patients with liver cirrhosis and esophagogastric variceal bleeding[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2021, 37(9): 2092-2096. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2021.09.018
[5]	Yan ZHANG, Huiguo DING. Risk factors for early rebleeding after endoscopic therapy for esophageal varices in cirrhotic patients[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2021, 37(9): 2087-2091. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2021.09.017
[6]	Pengpeng DING, Canghai WANG, Li LI, Jianhong CHEN, Xiaobao QI, Yanling WANG, Zheng LU, Wenhui ZHANG, Hong LIU. Risk factors for hemostatic failure in emergency gastroscopic sclerotherapy combined with tissue adhesive injection for esophagogastric variceal bleeding with portal vein embolus[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2021, 37(1): 68-72. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2021.01.014
[7]	Yingying CAO, Tao HAN, Yu ZHANG, Fang LIU, Jing LIANG, Haixia YUAN, Jun LI, Huiling XIANG. Rebleeding and prognosis of patients with liver cirrhosis and severe esophagogastric variceal bleeding[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2021, 37(6): 1326-1330. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2021.06.022
[8]	Huaiwen ZUO, Qimei SHA, Jiao SUN, Zhihui CAI, Hongwei XU, Hui LIU. Risk factors of portal vein thrombosis in cirrhotic patients with esophageal varices[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2021, 37(1): 63-67. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2021.01.013
[9]	Ruan FangMing, Li BiMin. Risk factors for the formation of portal vein thrombosis in patients with liver cirrhosis[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2020, 36(1): 182-185. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2020.01.043
[10]	Yao YunHai, Luo Yan, Zhu JingLe, Gan JianHe, Zhao WeiFeng. Risk factors for hepatic encephalopathy after emergency transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt for patients with acute esophagogastric variceal bleeding[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2020, 36(2): 343-347. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2020.02.022
[11]	Lyu Jing, Dong SiSi, Gu HongTu, Zhao ZhangQing, Liu ChengHai. TCM syndrome characteristics of portal vein thrombosis in patients with liver cirrhosis and related risk factors[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2019, 35(10): 2210-2213. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2019.10.016
[12]	Sun YaNan, Li Peng, Ding HuiGuo, Zhang ShiBin, Xiong Feng. Risk factors for early rebleeding after initial sclerotherapy for esophageal varices[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2019, 35(1): 92-97. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2019.01.017
[13]	Cui CanCan, Li DanDan, Li ZhangFeng, Yan ZhenKun, Wang LiQiang, Sun Chen, Zhang Ke, Zhang Bin. Risk factors for early rebleeding after first-time endoscopic variceal ligation[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2018, 34(7): 1445-1451. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2018.07.017
[14]	Ma JiaLi, Li Ping, Wei HongShan, Zhou YuLing, Liang XiuXia, Hu JuLong, Ai ZhengLin, Chen Xu. Risk factors for glue extrusion bleeding after endoscopic therapy for esophagogastric variceal bleeding[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2018, 34(1): 89-91. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2018.01.018
[15]	He Yang, Su YaRong, Han ZiYan. Current status of research on primary and secondary risk factors for esophagogastric variceal rebleeding in patients with liver cirrhosis[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2018, 34(7): 1555-1559. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2018.07.041
[16]	Zhou RenHua, Li Peng, Zhang YanTing, Yang Hua, Yang ShaoQi. Clinical manifestations of portal vein thrombosis and related risk factors in patients with liver cirrhosis[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2016, 32(2): 275-278. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2016.02.015
[17]	Gu Chuan, Li Lu, Wang Jun, Hou FengQin, Xu XiaoYuan. Study on efficacy of endoscopic ligation therapy for esophageal varices and risk factors for postoperative rebleeding[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2014, 30(12): 1279-1282. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2014.12.011
[18]	Yang Hua, Liu YunXia, Li Peng, Yang ShaoQi, Wang YuanZhen. Analysis of risk factors for early rebleeding from esophageal and gastric varices in patients with liver cirrhosis[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2014, 30(6): 540-542. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2014.06.015
[19]	Yang Yan, Fan YanHua, Fang Long, Gao Chun, Du ShiYu, Zhang MingGang, Wang YuanXin, Zhang KeJian. Risk factors of early rebleeding after endoscopic treatment of gastroesophageal varices[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2013, 29(3): 178-183.
[20]	Shao CuiPing, Xu XiaoYuan. Progress in the prevention and treatment of bleeding gastroesophageal varices in patients with cirrhosis[J]. Journal of Clinical Hepatology, 2012, 28(9): 647-650.

Supplements(0)

Cited By

Cited by

Periodical cited type(7)

1.	张玉婷，李嘉泰，宋晓静，丁方回，岳平，闫少林，李俊峰，张立婷，李汛. 不同IgM水平的原发性胆汁性胆管炎患者治疗应答及预后特点分析. 胃肠病学和肝病学杂志. 2025(02): 250-253 .
2.	张玲玲，张会品，李桂英，孔燕，马兰. 抗线粒体抗体、红细胞体积分布宽度与原发性胆汁性胆管炎熊去氧胆酸治疗应答效果的关系. 中国医药导报. 2024(04): 100-103 .
3.	张晓芳，徐海峰，章颖. LSM、PNI、Mayo评分对PBC相关肝硬化的预测价值. 南通大学学报(医学版). 2024(02): 131-135 .
4.	何学元，马建勋，杨屹立，张敏，潘新民. 布地奈德治疗熊去氧胆酸治疗不应答的原发性胆汁性胆管炎患者疗效及血清氧化应激指标的变化. 实用肝脏病杂志. 2023(03): 376-379 .
5.	邢雪梅，杨建睿，李治君，陈雅娟，姚凤霞，刘征. 免疫球蛋白用于原发性胆汁性胆管炎、戊型肝炎、肝硬化的鉴别诊断. 基础医学与临床. 2023(08): 1271-1274 .
6.	李兆明，章颖，邹美银. TBA、IgM、FIB-4评分对原发性胆汁性胆管炎患者肝纤维化的诊断价值. 胃肠病学和肝病学杂志. 2023(11): 1254-1257 .
7.	赵永春，刘锦云，刘晓瑞. 醋酸泼尼松龙联合熊去氧胆酸对PBC患者预后的影响. 河南医学高等专科学校学报. 2023(06): 637-640 .

Other cited types(1)

Proportional views

Proportional views

通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com

1.
沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院沈阳 110142

Tables(5)

Get Citation

PDF

XML

Article Metrics

Article views (553) PDF downloads(65)

Clinical efficacy of low-dose plasma exchange combined with double plasma molecular absorption system/hemoperfusion in treatment of acute-on-chronic liver failure

DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2022.11.017