ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2019
Differential clinical benefits of continuous blood purification treatment in critically ill patients with variable APACHE II scores.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Heat stroke with sepsis: A case report and review of the literature.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Review
- Advances in the comprehensive mechanisms, diagnosis, and treatment of heatstroke-induced coagulopathy.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to assess whether the Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score may be used to predict whether critically ill patients benefit from continuous blood purification (CBP) treatment. A total of 115 critically ill patients were retrospectively reviewed and grouped according to their baseline APACHE II scores. Each group was further divided into 2 groups based on whether they received CBP or not. At 72 h after CBP treatment, clinical indicators comprising the plasma levels of inflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-8, as well as endotoxin and procalcitonin (PCT), and severity scores (APACHE II, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and systemic inflammatory response syndrome), were analyzed in all patients. It was observed that while CBP slightly reduced the severity scores in all patients, it significantly improved those in patients with an APACHE II score of 20-29 (P<0.05). Similarly, the plasma levels of TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, endotoxin and PCT were significantly lower in patients receiving CBP than in those without CBP when the APACHE II score was 20-29 (P<0.05). Furthermore, CBP treatment significantly decreased the fatality rate and length of stay at the intensive care unit (ICU) for critically ill patients with an APACHE II score of 20-29 (P<0.05). In conclusion, CBP significantly decreases the inflammatory response, shortens the length of stay at the ICU and improves the prognosis for critically ill patients with an APACHE II score of 20-29 points. This observation suggests that the APACHE II score is an important clinical indicator to determine the potential benefit of CBP therapy in critically ill patients.
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.