ArticleScientific reports2022
Clinical outcomes of severe sepsis and septic shock patients with left ventricular dysfunction undergoing continuous renal replacement therapy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. 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.
- Development and internal validation of an ICU mortality prediction model for patients with concurrent sepsis and heart failure: a retrospective cohort study based on eICU-CRD.Cardiovascular diabetology. Endocrinology reports · 2026Article
- Refractory septic shock: our updated pragmatic approach.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2026Review
- Clinical impact and safety of continuous renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with solid tumors and acute kidney injury: a retrospective cohort analysis.American journal of cancer research · 2025Article
- Predicting 28-Day Mortality in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy: A Novel Interpretable Machine Learning Approach.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Article
- Continuous diagnosis and prognosis by controlling the update process of deep neural networks.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Baseline left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is associated with subsequent risks of acute kidney injury (AKI) and mortality in patients with sepsis. This study investigated the therapeutic effects of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in hemodynamically unstable patients with severe sepsis and septic shock combined with LV dysfunction. In this multicenter retrospective study, severe sepsis and septic shock patients with LV dysfunction were classified into one of two groups according to the timing of CRRT: the early group (before AKI was detected) or the control group (patients with AKI). Patients from the control group received an accelerated strategy or a standard strategy of CRRT. The primary outcome was all-cause intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Patients were weighted by stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights (sIPTW) to overcome differences in baseline characteristics. After sIPTW analysis, the ICU mortality was significantly lower in the early group than the control group (27.7% vs. 63.5%, p < 0.001). Weighted multivariable analysis showed that early CRRT initiation was a protective factor for the risk of ICU mortality (OR 0.149; 95% CI 0.051-0.434; p < 0.001). The ICU mortality was not different between the accelerated- and standard-strategy group (52.5% vs. 52.9%, p = 0.970). Early CRRT in the absence of AKI is suggested for hemodynamically unstable patients with severe sepsis and septic shock combined with LV dysfunction since it benefits survival outcomes.
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.