Observational studyScientific reports2025
Critical risks of haemoadsorption for COVID-19 patients and directions for future evaluations: a nationwide propensity score matched cohort study.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Haemoadsorption has been suggested as treatment adjunct for sepsis and septic shock, cardiac surgery, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Randomised clinical trials did not provide conclusive evidence for benefits and even suggest risks in COVID-19 patients. Retrospective observational cohort study based on hospital remuneration data from all COVID-19 patients treated in intensive care units in Germany between 01/01/2020 and 12/31/2021. Regression modelling was performed for 1:1 propensity score matching of 2058 patients. Two-sided probability values for group comparisons and regression models with spline functions controlling for non-linear relationships and medically relevant interaction variables were calculated. In-hospital mortality of patients supported with haemoadsorption was significantly higher compared to matched control patients (74.6% vs. 70.3%, p = 0.0299). Haemoadsorption was associated with coagulopathy (68.0% vs. 54.9%, p < 0.0001), cardiac arrhythmia (49.2% vs. 44.2%, p = 0.0272), and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR, 19.3% vs. 13.1%, p = 0.0002). Further, haemoadsorption increased the chance of death for COVID-19 patients without septic shock (odds ratio, OR [within a 95% confidence interval, CI]; 1.40 [1.05-1.86]) and did not improve survival of septic shock patients (1.19 [0.85-1.67]). Independent variables with a significant impact on mortality included the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO, 2.15 [1.68-2.76]) and CPR (1.60 [1.03-2.45]). The timing of the haemoadsorption therapy had no effect on patients´ outcomes. Due to inconclusive evidence for benefit and potential harm, haemoadsorption therapy should be limited to thoroughly designed clinical trials before introduced into clinical routine in the context of COVID-19.
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.