实用肝脏病杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (2): 237-240.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-5069.2026.02.019

• 肝衰竭 • 上一篇    下一篇

血浆置换序贯双重血浆分子吸附系统治疗慢加急性乙型肝炎肝衰竭患者疗效研究*

黎春宇, 邱源, 明全   

  1. 443003 湖北省宜昌市第三人民医院肝病科(黎春宇,明全);三峡大学附属中心人民医院肝病科(邱源)
  • 收稿日期:2025-04-09 出版日期:2026-03-10 发布日期:2026-03-13
  • 作者简介:黎春宇,男,51岁,大学本科,副主任医师。E-mail:abclcylcy@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    *湖北省科技厅科研专项资金资助项目(编号:A22-2-037)

Clinical efficacy of plasma exchange plus sequential double plasma molecular adsorption system in the treatment of patients with hepatitis B virus-associated acute-on-chronic liver failure

Li Chunyu, Qiu Yuan, Ming Quan   

  1. Department of Liver Diseases, Third People's Hospital, Yichang 443003, Hubei Province, China
  • Received:2025-04-09 Online:2026-03-10 Published:2026-03-13

摘要: 目的 探讨血浆置换(PE)序贯双重血浆分子吸附系统(DPMAS)治疗乙型肝炎病毒相关慢加急性肝衰竭(HBV-ACLF)患者的效果。方法 2022年6月~2024年12月我院诊治的HBV-ACLF患者63例,被分成A组31例和B组32例,分别给予PE后序贯DPMAS治疗或DPMAS后序贯PE治疗。随访3个月。使用全自动生化分析仪检测血生化指标,使用全自动凝血仪检测血清凝血酶原时间,计算国际标准化比值(INR),采用慢性肝衰竭联盟-慢加急性肝衰竭评分(CLIF-C ACLF)评价疾病严重程度。结果 在治疗3周后,B组血清总胆红素水平为(121.3±25.6)μmol/L,显著低于A组【(151.3±31.6)μmol/L,P<0.05】,而两组血清白蛋白、INR和CLIF-C ACLF评分【分别为(31.2±5.1)g/L、(1.6±0.3)和(43.9±4.1)对(30.6±5.2)g/L、(1.6±0.4)和(45.3±4.8)】比较,无显著性差异(P>0.05);在人工肝治疗过程中,两组管路闭塞、心率不稳定、血压下降和低血钙发生率(7.4%对10.0%)比较,无显著性差异(P>0.05);A组28 d生存率为87.1%,90 d生存率为58.1%,与B组的93.8%和68.8%比,无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论 采取PE后序贯DPMAS还是DPMAS后序贯PE治疗HBV-ACLF患者可能疗效相当,可根据临床习惯和物资准备情况选择进行。

关键词: 慢加急性肝衰竭, 血浆置换, 双重血浆分子吸附系统, 治疗

Abstract: Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical efficacy of plasma exchange (PE) plus sequential dual plasma molecular adsorption system (DPMAS) in the treatment of patients with hepatitis B virus-associated acute-on-chronic liver failure (HBV-ACLF). Methods 63 patients with HBV-ACLF were enrolled in our hospital between June 2022 and December 2024, and were randomly assigned to receive PE plus sequential DPMAS in 31 cases in group A, or receive DPMAS plus sequential PE in another 32 cases in group B. Serum biochemical parameters and serum prothrombin time (PT) were measured routinely, and international normalized ratio (INR) was calculated. The disease severity was evaluated by chronic liver failure consortium acute-on-chronic liver failure score (CLIF-C ACLF). Results By end of three week treatment, total serum bilirubin level in group B was (121.3±25.6)μmol/L, much lower than [(151.3±31.6)μmol/L, P<0.05] in group A, while there were no significant differences as respect to serum albumin, INR and CLIF-C ACLF scores [(31.2±5.1)g/L, (1.6±0.3) and (43.9±4.1) vs. (30.6±5.2)g/L, (1.6±0.4) and (45.3±4.8), respectively] between the two groups (P>0.05); during PE/DPMAS treatment, the incidences of adverse effects, such as pipeline blockage or clogging, unstable heart beats, hypotension and hypocalcemia between the two groups were not significant different(7.4% vs. 10.0%, P>0.05); the 28-day and 90-day survival rates in group A were 87.1% and 58.1%, both not significant different as compared to 93.8% and 68.8% (P>0.05) in group B. Conclusion Multiple liver-supporting system treatment, no matter which one first, in dealing with patients with HBV-ACLF might be helpful for improving short-term survivals, and needs further clinical investigation.

Key words: Acute-on-chronic liver failure, Plasma exchange, Double plasma molecular adsorption system, Therapy