Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38238627›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2024

Current clinical practice in using adjunctive extracorporeal blood purification in sepsis and septic shock: results from the ESICM "EXPLORATION" survey.

Klaus Stahl, Christian Bode, Benjamin Seeliger, Pedro David Wendel-Garcia, Sascha David

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. [What is confirmed in the treatment of sepsis? : An update].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Klaus StahlDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Infectious Diseases and Endocrinology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg Straße 1, 30163, Hannover, Germany. stahl.klaus@mh-hannover.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4833-6035
Christian BodeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Benjamin SeeligerDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Pedro David Wendel-GarciaInstitute of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Sascha DavidInstitute of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Medizinische Hochschule Hannover · DEUniversity Hospital Bonn · DEUniversity Hospital of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite a lack of clear evidence extracorporeal blood purification (EBP) is increasingly used as an adjunctive treatment in septic shock based on its biological plausibility. However, current state of praxis and believes in both efficacy and level of evidence are very heterogeneous.

methodsThe "EXPLORATION" (Current Clinical Practice in using adjunctive extracorporeal blood purification in septic shock), a web-based survey endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), questioned both the current local clinical practices as well as future perspectives of EBP in sepsis and septic shock.

resultsOne hundred and two people participated in the survey. The majority of three quarters of participants (74.5%) use adjunctive EBP in their clinical routine with a varying frequency of description. Unselective cytokine adsorption (CA) (37.5%) and therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) (34.1%) were by far the most commonly used modalities. While the overall theoretical rational was found to be moderate to high by the majority of the participants (74%), the effectively existing clinical evidence was acknowledged to be rather low (66%). Although CA was used most frequently in clinical practice, both the best existing clinical evidence endorsing its current use (45%) as well the highest potential to be explored in future clinical trials (51.5%) was attributed to TPE.

conclusionsAlthough the majority of participants use EBP techniques in their clinical practice and acknowledge a subjective good theoretical rationale behind it, the clinical evidence is assessed to be limited. While both CA and TPE are by far the most common used technique, both clinical evidence as well as future potential for further exploration in clinical trials was assessed to be the highest for TPE.

Indexed as

Blood purificationCurrent statusHemoadsorptionHemofiltrationPlasmapheresisResearchSepsisSeptic shock

Identifiers

PMID38238627
PMCPMC10796869
OpenAlexW4391006453

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.