4.6 Article

Efficacy of continuous plasma diafiltration therapy in critical patients with acute liver failure

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Volume 29, Issue 4, Pages 782-786

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12440

Keywords

acute kidney disease; acute liver failure; blood purification therapy; plasma exchange

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [26460995] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and AimsAcute liver failure (ALF) is a critical illness with high mortality. Plasma diafiltration (PDF) is a blood purification therapy that is useful for ALF patients, but it is difficult to use when those patients have multiple organ failure or unstable hemodynamics. In these patients, symptoms are also likely to exacerbate immediately after PDF therapy. We developed continuous PDF (CPDF) as a new concept in PDF therapy, and assessed its efficacy and safety in ALF patients. MethodsTen ALF patients (gender: M/F 6/4, Age: 4714) were employed CPDF therapy. The primary outcomes were altered liver function, measured by the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, and total bilirubin and prothrombin time international normalized ratios (PT-INR), 5 days after CPDF therapy. Secondary outcomes included sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores, 5 days after CPDF therapy, and the survival rate 14 days after this therapy. ResultsThe MELD score (34.5-28.0; P=0.005), total bilirubin (10.9-7.25mg/dL; P=0.048), PT-INR (1.89-1.31; P=0.084), and SOFA score (10.0-7.5; P<0.039) were improved 5 days after CPDF therapy. Nine patients were alive, and one patient died because of acute pancreatitis, complicated by ALF. There were no major adverse events related to this therapy under hemodynamic stability. ConclusionIn the present study, CPDF therapy safely supported liver function and generally improved the condition of critically ill patients with ALF.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available