Trial reportIntensive care medicine2015
Very high volume hemofiltration with the Cascade system in septic shock patients.
Trial report in Intensive care medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Critically Ill Older Adults' Representation in Intervention Trials: A Systematic Review.Critical care explorations · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of High-Volume Hemofiltration in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2019Pooled it
- Effect of high-volume hemofiltration on mortality in critically ill patients: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Unexplained mortality differences between septic shock trials: a systematic analysis of population characteristics and control-group mortality rates.Intensive care medicine · 2018Pooled it
- High-volume haemofiltration for sepsis in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Management of renal replacement therapy among adults in French intensive care units: A bedside practice evaluation.Journal of intensive medicine · 2023Article
- Extracorporeal blood purification strategies in sepsis and septic shock: An insight into recent advancements.World journal of critical care medicine · 2023Review
- Clinical improvement of sepsis by extracorporeal centrifugal leukocyte apheresis in a porcine model.Journal of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Immunosuppression in kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 infection - where do we stand and where are we heading?Renal failure · 2021Review
- Vasopressor-Sparing Strategies in Patients with Shock: A Scoping-Review and an Evidence-Based Strategy Proposition.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Covid-19 and kidney injury: Pathophysiology and molecular mechanisms.Reviews in medical virology · 2021Review
- Blood purification for sepsis: an overview.Precision clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Is there a role for blood purification therapies targeting cytokine storm syndrome in critically severe COVID-19 patients?Renal failure · 2020Review
- Preemptive renal replacement therapy in post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock patients: a new concept?Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- Treatment of sepsis-induced acute kidney injury in the ICU: the therapeutic targets do not seem to be established yet.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Extracorporeal organ support (ECOS) in critical illness and acute kidney injury: from native to artificial organ crosstalk.Intensive care medicine · 2018Review
- The future of critical care: renal support in 2027.Critical care (London, England) · 2017Review
- The Role of Adjunctive Therapies in Septic Shock by Gram Negative MDR/XDR Infections.The Canadian journal of infectious diseases & medical microbiology = Journal canadien des maladies infectieuses et de la microbiologie medicale · 2017Review
- Renal replacement therapy modalities in the ICU: the continuity is intermittent-response to comments by Schefold.Intensive care medicine · 2016Article
- The editorial policy of Intensive Care Medicine.Intensive care medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe compared hemodynamic and biological effects of the Cascade system, which uses very high volume hemofiltration (HVHF) (120 mL kg(-1) h(-1)), with those of usual care in patients with septic shock.
methodsMulticenter, prospective, randomized, open-label trial in three intensive care units (ICU). Adults with septic shock with administration of epinephrine/norepinephrine were eligible. Patients were randomized to usual care plus HVHF (Cascade group), or usual care alone (control group). Primary end point was the number of catecholamine-free days up to 28 days after randomization. Secondary end points were number of days free of mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy (RRT) or ICU up to 90 days, and 7-, 28-, and 90-day mortality.
resultsWe included 60 patients (29 Cascade, 31 usual care). Baseline characteristics were comparable. Median number of catecholamine-free days was 22 [IQR 11-23] vs 20 [0-25] for Cascade vs control; there was no significant difference even after adjustment. There was no significant difference in number of mechanical ventilation-free days or ICU requirement. Median number of RRT-free days was 85 [46-90] vs 74 [0-90] for Cascade vs control groups, p = 0.42. By multivariate analysis, the number of RRT-free days was significantly higher in the Cascade group (up to 25 days higher after adjustment). There was no difference in mortality at 7, 28, or 90 days.
conclusionVery HVHF using the Cascade system can safely be used in patients presenting with septic shock, but it was not associated with a reduction in the need for catecholamines during the first 28 days.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26431720What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.