Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37510784›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

Liver-Support Therapies in Critical Illness-A Comparative Analysis of Procedural Characteristics and Safety.

Daniel Göth, Christoph F Mahler, Florian Kälble, Claudius Speer, Louise Benning, Felix C F Schmitt, Maximilian Dietrich, Ellen Krautkrämer, Martin Zeier, Uta Merle and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel GöthDepartment of Nephrology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Christoph F MahlerDepartment of Nephrology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Florian KälbleDepartment of Nephrology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Claudius SpeerDepartment of Nephrology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Louise BenningDepartment of Nephrology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8366-2100
Felix C F SchmittDepartment of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-6464-6191
Maximilian DietrichDepartment of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0960-038X
Ellen KrautkrämerDepartment of Nephrology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Martin ZeierDepartment of Nephrology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Uta MerleDepartment of Gastroenterology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1386-3350
Christian MorathDepartment of Nephrology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Mascha O FiedlerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0127-2783
Markus A WeigandDepartment of Anesthesiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Christian NusshagDepartment of Nephrology, Heidelberg University Hospital, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7776-3784
Heidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extracorporeal liver-support therapies remain controversial in critically ill patients, as most studies have failed to show an improvement in outcomes. However, heterogeneous timing and inclusion criteria, an insufficient number of treatments, and the lack of a situation-dependent selection of available liver-support modalities may have contributed to negative study results. We retrospectively investigated the procedural characteristics and safety of the three liver-support therapies CytoSorb, Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System (MARS) and therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE). Whereas TPE had its strengths in a shorter treatment duration, in clearing larger molecules, affecting platelet numbers less, and improving systemic coagulation and hemodynamics, CytoSorb and MARS were associated with a superior reduction in particularly small protein-bound and water-soluble substances. The clearance magnitude was concentration-dependent for all three therapies, but additionally related to the molecular weight for CytoSorb and MARS therapy. Severe complications did not appear. In conclusion, a better characterization of disease-driving as well as beneficial molecules in critically ill patients with acute liver dysfunction is crucial to improve the use of liver-support therapy in critically ill patients. TPE may be beneficial in patients at high risk for bleeding complications and impaired liver synthesis and hemodynamics, while CytoSorb and MARS may be considered for patients in whom the elimination of smaller toxic compounds is a primary objective.

Indexed as

acute liver dysfunctionacute liver failureCytoSorbliver-support therapyMARStherapeutic plasma exchange

Identifiers

PMID37510784
PMCPMC10380554
OpenAlexW4384340974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.