ReviewScience progress
The application of therapeutic plasma exchange in sepsis and septic shock: A narrative review.
Review in Science progress. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Promising therapeutic interventions for preserving endothelial glycocalyx integrity in sepsis: a systematic review.Molecular biology reports · 2026Pooled it
- Observational
- An automatic consult reply system for therapeutic plasma exchange using retrieval-augmented generation.Vox sanguinis · 2026Article
- Article
- Case Report: Complicated Meckel's diverticulum masquerading as gastroenteritis: a near-fatal presentation in a toddler.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- ApoA1/HDL and sepsis-associated vascular endothelial injury: a narrative review.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Review
- Paeoniflorin attenuates sepsis-induced liver injury by reprogramming macrophage polarization via the TLR4/NF-κB pathway.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sepsis, characterized by a dysregulated host response to infection that leads to life-threatening organ dysfunction, remains a leading cause of mortality in the intensive care unit (ICU). Despite continuous optimization of treatment strategies, mortality rates remain high. Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) has emerged as a promising adjunctive therapy, offering benefits through the removal of harmful substances and the replenishment of essential plasma components. The key mechanisms of TPE include replenishing deficient plasma components, clearing inflammatory cytokines, improving thrombotic microangiopathy, regulating immune imbalance, and enhancing vascular endothelial function. Although the efficacy of TPE in sepsis and septic shock management shows promise, the current evidence is predominantly derived from retrospective studies and small-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs). As a result, the overall therapeutic effectiveness is inconclusive. The guidelines from the American Society for Apheresis and the Surviving Sepsis Campaign offer cautious recommendations for the use of TPE, particularly in patients with sepsis and multiple organ failure. Emerging RCTs suggest that early initiation of TPE can stabilize hemodynamics, reduce vasopressor requirements, and improve organ function, especially in cases of refractory septic shock. However, safety concerns need to be carefully considered, including hypotension and the potential for blood-borne infections. Future research should focus on larger RCTs to provide robust evidence supporting the role of TPE in sepsis and septic shock management. This review aims to summarize related research results to provide evidence for clinicians to use TPE in treating sepsis and septic shock.
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.