ArticleBioMed research international2015
Early Fluid Resuscitation and High Volume Hemofiltration Decrease Septic Shock Progression in Swine.
Article in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A model of porcine polymicrobial septic shock.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2023Article
- Clinical effects of hemoperfusion combined with pulse high-volume hemofiltration on septic shock.Medicine · 2020Observational
- Continuous hemodiafiltration as a rescue therapy for patients with cardiopulmonary failure caused by enterovirus-71: a retrospective observational study in a PICU.BMC infectious diseases · 2019Observational
- Oxygen delivery to the blood stream by the dialysis fluid during continuous renal replacement therapy ex vivo.Journal of artificial organs : the official journal of the Japanese Society for Artificial Organs · 2019Article
- The Systemic Alterations of Lipids, Alanine-Glucose Cycle and Inter-Organ Amino Acid Metabolism in Swine Model Confirms the Role of Liver in Early Phase of Septic Shock.Frontiers in physiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the effects of early fluid resuscitation (EFR) combined with high volume hemofiltration (HVHF) on the cardiopulmonary function and removal of inflammatory mediators in a septic shock swine model. Eighteen swine were randomized into three groups: control (n = 6) (extracorporeal circulating blood only), continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) (n = 6; ultrafiltration volume = 25 mL/Kg/h), and HVHF (n = 6; ultrafiltration volume = 85 mL/Kg/h). The septic shock model was established by intravenous infusion of lipopolysaccharides (50 µg/kg/h). Hemodynamic parameters (arterial pressure, heart rate, cardiac output, stroke volume variability, left ventricular contractility, systemic vascular resistance, and central venous pressure), vasoactive drug parameters (dose and time of norepinephrine and hourly fluid intake), pulmonary function (partial oxygen pressure and vascular permeability), and cytokines (interleukin-6 and interleukin-10) were observed. Treatment resulted in significant changes at 4-6 h. HVHF was beneficial, as shown by the dose of vasoactive drugs, fluid intake volume, left ventricular contractility index, and partial oxygen pressure. Both CRRT and HVHF groups showed improved removal of inflammatory mediators compared with controls. In conclusion, EFR combined with HVHF improved septic shock in this swine model. The combination decreased shock progression, reduced the need for vasoactive drugs, and alleviated the damage to cardiopulmonary functions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.