MO661COMPARISON OF CLINICAL EFFICACY OF CENTRIFUGAL-MEMBRANOUS DOUBLE FILTRATION PLASMAPHERESIS AND MEMBRANOUS DOUBLE FILTRATION PLASMAPHERESIS ON SEVERE LUPUS NEPHRITIS
Authors: Dong Jianhua , Huang Li , Li Chuan , Kong Ling , Huang Lixuan , Fan Wenjing , Wu Bian , Hu Weixin , Ge Yongchun 
Published: May 2021

Background and Aims

The Study delves into the clinical efficacy and advantages of centrifugal double filtration plasmapheresis on severe lupus nephritis (LN) by comparing it with membranous double filtration plasmapheresis (DFPP).

Method

A retrospective analysis was performed on 56 patients who were diagnosed with severe LN and had received DFPP treatment from May 2016 and January 2020. Of them, 38 were given centrifugal DFPP and had their plasma centrifuged in a blood cell separator, and 18 were given membranous DFPP and had their plasma centrifuged in an MPS07 plasma separator. An EC20W plasma component separator was used as the secondary filter to reprocess the separated plasma of all of them. The two DFPPs were compared for differences in clinical efficacy, vascular access, dosage of anticoagulant, treatment cost and adverse events in patients with severe LN.

Results

Of the 56 severe LN patients (including 43 females and 13 males), the median of age of onset was 29 years old, the SLEDAI (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index) was 18.6±6.0 points and the serum creatinine was 402(294,553) umol/L, and all patients had acute kidney injury and 51 of them (91.1%) required renal replacement therapy (RRT). A total of 142 DFPPs were performed, including 97 centrifugal DFPPs and 45 membranous DFPPs. After treatment and at Month 3 of follow-up visit, patients in both the centrifugal DFPP group and the membranous DFPP group had ANA, AdsDNA titer, quantitative urinary protein, urinary red blood cell count and serum creatinine significantly dropped and hemoglobin significantly increased over those before treatment, the differences in which between the two groups, however, were not statistically significant. The centrifugal DFPP group had a more significant drop in complements C3 and C4 after treatment. Comparison of the data before and after a single DFPP treatment showed that the membranous DFPP group had a more significantly longer prothrombin time, but there were no differences in partial prothrombin time, fibrinogen and platelet change between the two groups. At Month 3 of follow-up visit, 31 of the 51 RRT patients (60.8%) (including 34 given centrifugal DFPP and 17 given membranous DFPP) were released from dialysis, including 23 given centrifugal DFPP and 8 given membranous DFPP. In the membranous DFPP group, all patients had the vascular access built via the central venous catheter, while in the centrifugal DFPP group, 6 patients (15.8%) had the vascular access built by puncturing into the artery or vein. The dosage of the anticoagulant, the low molecular weight heparin, to the centrifugal DFPP group was significantly lower than that to the membranous DFPP group (1174±243 vs 4106±399IU, P&lt;0.001), and in the centrifugal DFPP group, 29 patients (76.3%) were given 4% citric acid alone for anti-coagulation. No blood coagulation occurred. In terms of treatment consumables, the membranous DFPP group had a significantly higher cost than the centrifugal DFPP group (RMB4340.2±237.0 vs 5677.0±0.0, P&lt;0.001). Two patients (4.4%) in the membranous DFPP group developed skin ectasis, epistaxis or aggravated alveolar hemorrhage after treatment, and four patients (4.1%) in the centrifugal DFPP group developed perioral numbness, numbness in distal extremities or tetany during treatment, which was alleviated after calcium supplementation.

Conclusion

Centrifugal DFPP differed little from membranous DFPP in clinical efficacy in severe LN patients, but had lower anti-coagulation requirements, cost less on treatment consumables, and caused no severe adverse events, so it can be used as an important means to treat severe LN.