ArticleJournal of intensive medicine2026
Hemodynamic response to high-volume hemofiltration in pediatric septic shock.
Article in Journal of intensive medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-volume hemofiltration (HVHF) has recently been recommended as an adjunctive therapy in pediatric septic shock; however, limited data on its therapeutic impact and the absence of defined response criteria remain concerns for its utilization. We aimed to report the hemodynamic response, patient characteristics, and their association with outcomes in children with refractory septic shock responding to HVHF. Methods: We conducted a single-center cohort retrospective, descriptive, observational study of patients with septic shock receiving HVHF therapy. The progression of the vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS) from the start to 24 h of HVHF therapy was evaluated. The optimal timing and reduction of VIS were identified as predictors of survival, informing the most appropriate criteria for HVHF therapy responsiveness. Finally, the characteristics of patients who responded to HVHF were analyzed. Results: A total of 64 patients were included, with a median age of 26 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 7.5-82.0), all of whom were mechanically ventilated. The median VIS at inclusion was 411.2 (IQR: 168-770), and the median computed Septic Shock Score was 20.1 (IQR: 3.1-21.3). The median time from admission to HVHF initiation was 24 h (IQR: 12-48) and an ultrafiltrate rate of 80 mL/(kg·h) (IQR: 53-100). Overall, the survival rate was 27/64 (42.2%). The best response criterion was a >50% reduction in VIS after 12 h of HVHF therapy, with a survival rate of 65.2% (15/23) in responders Conclusions: Our study indicated that a reduction of over 50% in the VIS after 12 h of HVHF therapy is the most reliable predictor of survival in children with refractory septic shock. These hypothesis-generating criteria may assist in early assessment of HVHF response.
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.