Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40696820›Full record

ReviewScience progress

The application of therapeutic plasma exchange in sepsis and septic shock: A narrative review.

Yanli Wu, Huiling Guo, Haiyan Huang, Yaqi Ouyang, Ruishan Yao, Yaohui Ming, Jin Zhou, Yaowen Yuan, Lingli Miao, Ruiting Li

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Yanli WuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Huiling GuoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Haiyan HuangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Yaqi OuyangDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Ruishan YaoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Yaohui MingDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Jin ZhouDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Yaowen YuanDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Lingli MiaoDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Ruiting LiDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8041-1050

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Plasma ExchangeSepsisShock, SepticHumansIntensive Care UnitsMultiple Organ FailureRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicmultiple organ dysfunction syndromesepsisseptic shockTherapeutic plasma exchange

Identifiers

PMID40696820
PMCPMC12290322

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.