ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2024
Survival benefit of resin cartridge extracorporeal blood purification therapy in patients with septic shock.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2024. 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.
- Timing of hemoadsorption in sepsis: redefining early through mediator-guided therapy.Journal of intensive care · 2026Review
- Use of extracorporeal blood purification therapies in sepsis: the current paradigm, available evidence, and future perspectives.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Extracorporeal blood purification (EBP) therapies have shown promise as potential rescue treatments for patients with septic shock. However, precise evidence regarding their effectiveness is lacking. This case-control study aimed to evaluate the 28-day survival benefit of a resin cartridge-based EBP therapy compared to conventional therapies in patients with septic shock. Materials and methods: The study sample was collected retrospectively from the medical records of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) between 2015 and 2020. The study included patients with septic shock aged ≥18 years who had ICU stays >96 h and excluded those lost to follow-up by 28 days or readmitted. First, 28-day survival was compared between EBP patients and 1:1 matched conventionally treated controls. Second, the EBP patients were evaluated for clinical and laboratory improvements within 72 h of EBP therapy. Results: Of 3742 patients, 391 were included in this study, of whom 129 received EBP therapy and had a 28-day survival rate of 44%, compared to 262 matched controls who received conventional therapy alone and had a survival rate of 33% (p = 0.001, log-rank = 0.05, number needed to treat = 8, and odds ratio = 1.7). After receiving EBP therapy for 72 h, improvements were observed in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores (p < 0.05), shock indices (p < 0.05), partial pressure of oxygen in the arterial blood to the fraction of inspiratory oxygen concentration ratios (p < 0.001), vasopressor requirements (p < 0.001), pH (p < 0.05), lactate levels (p < 0.001), and C-reactive protein levels (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The findings suggest that administering resin cartridge-based EBP therapy to patients with septic shock may improve their survival compared to conventional therapies.
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.