肝脏 ›› 2026, Vol. 31 ›› Issue (7): 1035-1038.

• 其他肝病 • 上一篇    下一篇

血管通路对双重血浆分子吸附系统治疗肝衰竭的影响

姜菊, 胡彦明, 汤汝佳, 周霞, 姚红宇, 冯丹妮, 王开利, 刘鸿凌   

  1. 100039 北京 中国人民解放军总医院第五医学中心
  • 收稿日期:2025-08-25 出版日期:2026-07-31 发布日期:2026-08-21
  • 通讯作者: 刘鸿凌,Email:lhl7125@sina.com
  • 作者简介:共同第一作者:胡彦明

Clinical study of the effect of vascular access on double plasma molecular adsorption system (DPMAS) therapy in patients with liver failure

Jiang Ju, Hu Yanming, Tang Rujia, Zhou Xia, Yao Hongyu, Feng Danni, Wang Kaili, Liu Hongling   

  1. The 5th Medical Center of the PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100039, China
  • Received:2025-08-25 Online:2026-07-31 Published:2026-08-21
  • Contact: Liu Hongling,Email: lhl7125@sina.com

摘要: 目的 探讨双重血浆分子吸附系统(DPMAS)治疗肝衰竭患者时,血管通路对其临床效果及安全性的影响。方法 选择2021年1月至2022年6月于中国人民解放军总医院第五医学中心接受DPMAS治疗的133例肝衰竭患者为研究对象,根据血管通路不同,分为置管组(颈内静脉导管)和穿刺组(动脉-静脉直接穿刺),比较治疗前后的生化指标、凝血功能及安全性。结果 置管组和穿刺组患者均取得了较好临床效果,有效率为72.46% 和73.44%(P=0.764 );INR明显增加,ALT 、DBil 、TBil 水平显著下降,但其治疗前后变化值差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。穿刺组人工肝治疗时的血流速度和血浆吸附量低于置管组(P值分别为0.001和0.007)。穿刺组和置管组不良反应发生率为78.00% 和39.13%,穿刺处出血和血流不足/穿刺失败病例明显高于置管组(P=0.012和0.009)。结论 在肝衰竭患者中行DPMAS治疗时,均可选择颈内静脉导管与动-静脉穿刺,医护人员应根据患者血管条件、治疗次数、凝血功能等情况,结合自身技术和习惯,选择最佳通路。

关键词: 肝衰竭, 血管通路, 治疗, 双重血浆分子吸附

Abstract: Objective To investigate the impact of vascular access on the clinical efficacy and safety of double plasma molecular adsorption system (DPMAS) therapy in patients with liver failure. Methods A total of 133 patients with liver failure who underwent DPMAS therapy at the Fifth Medical Center of the PLA General Hospital between January 2021 and June 2022 were enrolled. They were divided into a catheter group (internal jugular vein catheter) and a puncture group (direct arteriovenous puncture) based on vascular access type. Pre- and post-treatment biochemical, coagulation, and safety parameters were compared. Results Both catheterization and puncture groups achieved favorable clinical outcomes, with response rates of 72.46% and 73.44% respectively (P=0.764). INR increased markedly, whereas ALT, DBil, and TBil levels decreased significantly after treatment in both groups; however, the between-group differences in changes from baseline were not statistically significant (P>0.05). During artificial liver treatment, blood flow rate and plasma adsorption volume were lower in the puncture group than in the catheterization group (P=0.001 and 0.007 respectively). Regarding adverse reactions and safety indicators, the incidence rate in the puncture group reached 78.00%, markedly higher than the catheter group (39.13%). Puncture-site bleeding and insufficient blood flow/puncture failure were significantly more frequent in the puncture group than in the catheter group (P values 0.012 and 0.009, respectively). Conclusion Both internal jugular vein catheterization and arteriovenous puncture are viable options for DPMAS therapy in patients with hepatic failure. Healthcare professionals should select the optimal access route based on the patient′s vascular condition, treatment frequency, coagulation status, and their own technical proficiency and preferences.

Key words: Hepatic failure, Vascular access, Therapy, Double plasma molecular adsorption system