ArticlePediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany)2025
Management dilemma in choosing evolving treatments in neutropenic septic shock.
Article in Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany), 2025. 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.
- Tandem extracorporeal blood purification therapies for sepsis and acute kidney injury in critically ill children: a state-of-the-art review.Renal failure · 2026Review
- Early post-approval experience of the selective cytopheretic device surveillance registry for pediatric AKI requiring kidney replacement therapy.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
How does a physician decide to use a recently FDA-approved life-saving device in a desperately ill child in which little prior clinical experience is available? This report presents a pediatric patient with neutropenic septic shock and multiorgan failure (MOF) with a 95% chance of death and the availability of a therapeutic device with a completely new approach to treat sepsis. This device, called the selective cytopheretic device (SCD), is a first-in-class autologous immune cell directed therapy. The SCD, when integrated into an extracorporeal blood circuit, has been shown to bind activated neutrophils and monocytes. With a simple pharmacologic maneuver within the device, the bound cells in real time are immunomodulated from a highly pro-inflammatory state to a less inflammatory phenotype. These transformed cells are then released back into the systemic circulation thereby tempering the systemic hyperinflammatory disorder. Since this cell directed therapy focuses on neutrophils, the processing of these cells in a neutropenic state may be a substantive risk resulting in further immunosuppression. On the other hand, the immunomodulation of the circulating neutrophils and monocytes, although sparse, may be beneficial to disrupt the dysregulated inflammatory state responsible for ongoing tissue damage and organ dysfunction. Prior clinical SCD trials excluded patients with neutropenia so that no prior clinical experience was available to make a difficult decision. This report presents the way the medical team approached these issues and made a therapeutic plan that resulted in a positive clinical outcome for the patient.
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.