ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2024
Current clinical practice in using adjunctive extracorporeal blood purification in sepsis and septic shock: results from the ESICM "EXPLORATION" survey.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intracranial multimodal monitoring in neurocritical care (Neurocore-iMMM): an open, decentralized consensus.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Guideline
- [Extracorporeal immunomodulation in sepsis : Role, limits, and perspectives of adjuvant blood purification therapies].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2026Review
- Endothelial Biomarkers Predict Clinical Deterioration in Acute Pancreatitis.Journal of clinical practice and research · 2026Article
- Clinical practice in using corticosteroids and adjunctive sepsis therapies at the bedside among European ICUs: an ESICM-endorsed survey.Intensive care medicine experimental · 2026Article
- Use of Oxiris membrane in real-world clinical practice in critical care patients: a multicenter observational study.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2025Article
- Knowledge gaps in extracorporeal blood purification: what would be required for its successful application in septic shock?Intensive care medicine experimental · 2025Review
- Efficacy of hemoadsorption in the severe course of COVID-19.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- [What is confirmed in the treatment of sepsis? : An update].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Plasma exchange in septic shock: are we ready for prime time? PRO.Intensive care medicine · 2024Article
- The phenomenon of desorption: What are the best adsorber exchange intervals?Critical care (London, England) · 2024Article
- The application of therapeutic plasma exchange in sepsis and septic shock: A narrative review.Science progressReview
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.