Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39722012›Full record

ReviewCritical care (London, England)2024

Use of extracorporeal blood purification therapies in sepsis: the current paradigm, available evidence, and future perspectives.

Gabriella Bottari, Vito Marco Ranieri, Can Ince, Antonio Pesenti, Filippo Aucella, Anna Maria Scandroglio, Claudio Ronco, Jean-Louis Vincent

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Cytokine storm in acute respiratory distress syndrome.Journal of intensive medicine · 2026
    Review
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Gabriella BottariPediatric Intensive Care Unit, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Piazzale Sant'Onofrio 65, Rome, Italy. gabriella.bottari@opbg.net.
Vito Marco RanieriDepartment of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area (DiMePRe-J), University Aldo Moro Bari, Bari, Italy.
Can InceLaboratory of Translational Intensive Care, Department of Intensive Care, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Antonio PesentiFondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Filippo AucellaNephrology and Dialysis Unit, Casa Solievo Della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo, Foggia, Italy.
Anna Maria ScandroglioIRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Claudio RoncoInternational Renal Research Institute Vicenza, IRRIV, Vicenza, Italy.
Jean-Louis VincentDepartment of Intensive Care, Erasme University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSepsis is the result of a dysregulated immune response to infection and is associated with acute organ dysfunction. The syndrome's complexity is contingent upon the underlying pathology and individual patient characteristics, including their immune response. The involvement of multiple organs and physiological functions adds complexity, with "organ cross-talk" emerging as a pivotal pathophysiological and clinical aspect. This narrative review to evaluate the rationale and available clinical evidence supporting the use of extracorporeal blood purification therapies as adjunctive therapy in patients with sepsis and septic shock. MAIN BODY: A search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus databases for relevant literature from August 2002 to May 2024 has been conducted. The search was performed using the terms: 1) "blood purification" or "hemadsorption" or "plasma exchange" AND 2) "sepsis" or "septic shock". Therefore the authors have focused our discussion on several key areas such as conducting well-designed trials, developing more personalized protocols, ensuring optimal management and monitoring.

conclusionsGiven the heterogeneity of patients with sepsis, conducting traditional randomized clinical trials in this domain can be a daunting task. However, statistical techniques such as Bayesian methods, propensity score analysis, and emulated clinical trials using clinical databases hold promise for enhancing comparability between the study groups. Indeed, to comprehend the clinical efficacy of extracorporeal blood purification techniques in patients with sepsis, it is imperative to assemble homogeneous groups of patients receiving uniform treatments. Clinical strategies should be individualized, signaling the end of the "one size fits all" approach in sepsis therapy and the need for personalized treatments.

Indexed as

SepsisHumansAntibioticsEBPTsInflammatory mediatorsInotropesMicrocirculationMortalityOrgan cross talkingPhenotypesPropensity scoreSepsis

Identifiers

PMID39722012
PMCPMC11670469

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.