Therapeutic plasma-exchange improves short-term, but not long-term, outcomes in patients with acute-on-chronic liver failure: A propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is associated with a high short-term mortality rate in the absence of liver transplantation. The role of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) in improving the outcomes of ACLF and acute decompensation (AD) is unclear. In this retrospective analysis, we aimed to determine the impact of TPE on mortality in patients with ACLF. METHODS: ACLF patients receiving TPE with standard medical treatment (SMT) were propensity score matched (PSM) with those receiving SMT alone (1:1) for sex, grades of ACLF, CLIF C ACLF scores, and the presence of hepatic encephalopathy. The primary outcomes assessed were mortality at 30 and 90 days. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan Meier survival curves. RESULTS: A total of 1151 patients (ACLF n = 864 [75%], AD [without organ failure] n = 287 [25%]) were included. Of the patients with ACLF (n = 864), grade 1, 2, and 3 ACLF was present in 167 (19.3%), 325 (37.6%), and 372 (43.0%) patients, respectively. Thirty-nine patients received TPE and SMT, and 1112 patients received only SMT. On PSM analysis, there were 38 patients in each group (SMT plus TPE vs SMT alone). In the matched cohort, the 30-days mortality was lower in the TPE arm compared to SMT (21% vs 50%, P = .008), however, the 90-day mortality was not significantly different between the two groups (36.8% vs 52.6%, P = .166); HR, 0.82 (0.44-1.52), P = .549. CONCLUSION: TPE improves short-term survival in patients with ACLF, but has no significant impact on long-term outcomes. Randomized control trials are needed to obtain a robust conclusion in this regard.

A comparative study of five plateletpheresis machines in a tertiary care center of India: AmiCORE vs COM.TEC vs Haemonetics MCS+ vs Spectra Optia vs Trima Accel.

BACKGROUND: Single donor apheresis platelets are superior in quality, but their usage is limited in a developing country due to cost and time constraints. Hence the product obtained must exceed in terms of yield, donor safety and technical convenience. Previous literature available on cell separators is on older versions. AIMS: Prospective comparison of 5 latest cell separators (AmiCORE, COM.TEC, Haemonetics MCS+, SpectraOptia and TrimaAccel) for product yield, performance variables and donor adverse effects. MATERIAL & METHODS: From October 2019 - March 2020, 1108 donors were randomly allotted to a cell separator. Post-donation sample was taken from the donor 15-20 minutes after procedure completion. The platelet yield from the product collected was measured twice (day 0 and day 1). Donor demography, pre-and post-procedural donor peripheral blood values, performance and product variables were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: AmiCORE had an optimal collection efficacy (44.6%) and collection rate (0.037 x 1011/minute). Haemonetics MCS+ had a better collection efficacy (48.4%) and rate (0.038 x 1011/minute). Spectra Optia achieved least procedural time (59.5 minutes), donor adverse effects (6.3%); highest collection efficacy (52.8%) and rate (0.056 x 1011/minute). Trima Accel achieved highest collection rate (0.056 x 1011/minute) and the least product volume (228 ml). CONCLUSION: Highest collection efficacy was achieved by Trima Accel, highest collection rate by Trima Accel and Spectra Optia, lowest donor adverse effects by Spectra Optia and least number of procedural troubleshooting by COM.TEC. Apart from this, fiscal factors and service availability also need to be considered before choosing a cell separator.