Explore the vast range of titles available.

Several extracorporeal blood purification techniques have been proposed in critically ill patients with sepsis and sepsis-like syndromes. Despite theoretical benefits, recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines have not formulated a recommendation in favour of or against such techniques and urged for further research [1]. In this context, CytoSorb® (CytoSorbents Corporation, NJ, USA) was recently licensed for extracorporeal cytokine removal within the European Union (EU).

Background and aims Innovative treatment modalities have not yet shown a clinical benefit in patients with septic shock. To reduce severe cytokinaemia, CytoSorb as an add-on to continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) showed promising results in case reports. However, there are no clinical trials investigating outcomes. Methods In this investigator-initiated retrospective study, patients with septic shock were treated with CRRT + CytoSorb ( n  = 67) or CRRT alone ( n  = 49). The primary outcome was the 28-day all-cause mortality rate. Patients were weighted by stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights (sIPTW) to overcome differences in baseline characteristics. Results At the start of therapy, CytoSorb-treated patients had higher lactate levels ( p  < 0.001), lower mean arterial pressure ( p  = 0.007) and higher levels of noradrenaline ( p  < 0.001) compared to the CRRT group. For CytoSorb, the mean predicted mortality rate based on a SOFA of 13.8 ( n  = 67) was 75% (95%CI 71–79%), while the actual 28-day mortality rate was 48% (mean difference − 27%, 95%CI − 38 to − 15%, p  < 0.001). For CRRT, based on a SOFA of 12.8 ( n  = 49), the mean predicted versus observed mortality was 68% versus 51% (mean difference − 16.9% [95%CI − 32.6 to − 1.2%, p  = 0.035]). By sIPTW analysis, patients treated with CytoSorb had a significantly lower 28-day mortality rate compared to CRRT alone (53% vs. 72%, respectively, p  = 0.038). Independent predictors of 28-day mortality in the CytoSorb group were the presence of pneumosepsis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.47, p  = 0.029), higher levels of lactate at the start of CytoSorb (aOR 1.15, p  = 0.031) and older age (aOR per 10 years 1.67, p  = 0.034). Conclusions CytoSorb was associated with a decreased observed versus expected 28-day all-cause mortality. By IPTW analysis, intervention with CytoSorb may be associated with a decreased all-cause mortality at 28 days compared to CRRT alone.

Background Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is often associated with degrees of complex inflammatory response mediated by various cytokines. This response can, in severe cases, lead to systemic hypotension and organ dysfunction. Cytokine removal might therefore improve outcomes of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. CytoSorb® (Cytosorbents, NJ, USA) is a recent device designed to remove cytokine from the blood using haemoadsorption (HA). This trial aims to evaluate the potential of CytoSorb® to decrease peri-operative cytokine levels in cardiac surgery. Methods We have conducted a single-centre pilot randomized controlled trial in 30 patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery and deemed at risk of complications. Patients were randomly allocated to either standard of care ( n  = 15) or CytoSorb® HA ( n  = 15) during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Our primary outcome was the difference between the two groups in cytokines levels (IL-1a, IL-1b, IL-2, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, TNF-α, IFN-γ, MCP-1) measured at anaesthesia induction, at the end of CPB, as well as 6 and 24 h post-CPB initiation. In a consecutive subgroup of patients (10 in HA group, 11 in control group), we performed cross-adsorber as well as serial measurements of coagulation factors’ activity (antithrombin, von Willebrand factor, factor II, V, VIII, IX, XI, and XII). Results Both groups were similar in terms of baseline and peri-operative characteristics. CytoSorb® HA during CPB was not associated with an increased incidence of adverse event. The procedure did not result in significant coagulation factors’ adsorption but only some signs of coagulation activation. However, the intervention was associated neither with a decrease in pro- or anti-inflammatory cytokine levels nor with any improvement in relevant clinical outcomes. Conclusions CytoSorb® HA during CPB was not associated with a decrease in pro- or anti-inflammatory cytokines nor with an improvement in relevant clinical outcomes. The procedure was feasible and safe. Further studies should evaluate the efficacy of CytoSorb® HA in other clinical contexts. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02775123 . Registered 17 May 2016.

Background Septic shock, defined as life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection, is a highly lethal condition that causes substantial morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients. One of the hallmarks of sepsis is the excessive release of cytokines and other inflammatory mediators causing refractory hypotension, tissue damage, metabolic acidosis and ultimately multiple organ failure. In this context, cytokine reduction by hemoadsorption represents a new concept for blood purification, developed to attenuate the overwhelming systemic levels of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory mediators released in the early phase of sepsis. Methods In the present case series, we evaluated the impact of a new hemoadsorption device (CytoSorb) used as adjunctive therapy, on hemodynamics and clinically relevant outcome parameters in 26 critically ill patients with septic shock and in need of renal replacement therapy. Results We found that treatment of these patients with septic shock was associated with hemodynamic stabilization and a reduction in blood lactate levels. Actual mortality in the overall patient population was lower than mortality predicted by acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II). These effects seem to be more pronounced in patients in whom therapy started within 24 h of sepsis diagnosis, whereas a delay in the start of therapy was associated with a poor response to therapy in terms of reduction of catecholamine demand and survival. Moreover, from our patient population, medical patients seemed to benefit more than post-surgical patients in terms of survival. Treatment using the CytoSorb device was safe and well-tolerated with no device-related adverse events during or after the treatment sessions. Conclusion Hemoadsorption using CytoSorb resulted in rapid hemodynamic stabilization and increased survival, particularly in patients in whom therapy was started early. Given the positive clinical experience of this case series, randomized controlled trials are urgently needed to define the potential benefits of this new treatment option.

ObjectiveTo identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock.DesignA consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations.MethodsEach committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (ESM 1 - supplemental table 1) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science.ResultsThe Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: (1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; (2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; (3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; (4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; (5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and (6) what information identifies organ dysfunction?ConclusionsWhile the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Purpose Septic shock is a leading cause of death among critically ill patients, in particular when complicated by acute kidney injury (AKI). Small experimental and human clinical studies have suggested that high-volume haemofiltration (HVHF) may improve haemodynamic profile and mortality. We sought to determine the impact of HVHF on 28-day mortality in critically ill patients with septic shock and AKI. Methods This was a prospective, randomized, open, multicentre clinical trial conducted at 18 intensive care units in France, Belgium and the Netherlands. A total of 140 critically ill patients with septic shock and AKI for less than 24 h were enrolled from October 2005 through March 2010. Patients were randomized to either HVHF at 70 mL/kg/h or standard-volume haemofiltration (SVHF) at 35 mL/kg/h, for a 96-h period. Results Primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. The trial was stopped prematurely after enrolment of 140 patients because of slow patient accrual and resources no longer being available. A total of 137 patients were analysed (two withdrew consent, one was excluded); 66 patients in the HVHF group and 71 in the SVHF group. Mortality at 28 days was lower than expected but not different between groups (HVHF 37.9 % vs. SVHF 40.8 %, log-rank test p  = 0.94). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the secondary endpoints between treatment groups. Conclusions In the IVOIRE trial, there was no evidence that HVHF at 70 mL/kg/h, when compared with contemporary SVHF at 35 mL/kg/h, leads to a reduction of 28-day mortality or contributes to early improvements in haemodynamic profile or organ function. HVHF, as applied in this trial, cannot be recommended for treatment of septic shock complicated by AKI.

Post-cardiac surgery shock is associated with high morbidity and mortality. By removing toxins and proinflammatory mediators and correcting metabolic acidosis, high-volume hemofiltration (HVHF) might halt the vicious circle leading to death by improving myocardial performance and reducing vasopressor dependence. To determine whether early HVHF decreases all-cause mortality 30 days after randomization. This prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial included patients with severe shock requiring high-dose catecholamines 3-24 hours post-cardiac surgery who were randomized to early HVHF (80 ml/kg/h for 48 h), followed by standard-volume continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) until resolution of shock and recovery of renal function, or conservative standard care, with delayed CVVHDF only for persistent, severe acute kidney injury. On Day 30, 40 of 112 (36%) HVHF and 40 of 112 (36%) control subjects (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.56; P = 1.00) had died; only 57% of the control subjects had received renal-replacement therapy. Between-group survivors' Day-60, Day-90, intensive care unit, and in-hospital mortality rates, Day-30 ventilator-free days, and renal function recovery were comparable. HVHF patients experienced faster correction of metabolic acidosis and tended to be more rapidly weaned off catecholamines but had more frequent hypophosphatemia, metabolic alkalosis, and thrombocytopenia. For patients with post-cardiac surgery shock requiring high-dose catecholamines, the early HVHF onset for 48 hours, followed by standard volume until resolution of shock and recovery of renal function, did not lower Day-30 mortality and did not impact other important patient-centered outcomes compared with a conservative strategy with delayed CVVHDF initiation only for patients with persistent, severe acute kidney injury. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01077349).

Sepsis, a dysregulated host response to infection, is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients, despite advancements in antimicrobial therapies. Recent innovations in extracorporeal blood purification therapies, such as the Selective Cytopheretic Device (SCD), Polymyxin B Hemoperfusion Cartridge (PMX-HP), and Seraph 100 Microbind Affinity Blood Filter (Seraph), have demonstrated promising potential as adjuncts to conventional therapies. The SCD targets activated white blood cells, while PMX-HP binds endotoxins in Gram-negative sepsis. The Seraph targets a broad range of pathogens, including viruses, bacteria and fungi. Evidence from several clinical trials and observational studies indicate that these therapies can improve organ function, and potentially improve survival in patients with sepsis. Despite the strong pathophysiological rationale for using these devices in sepsis, conclusive evidence of their effectiveness remains limited. Multicenter randomized controlled trials are currently underway with each of these devices to establish their role in improving patient outcomes. Further research is needed to establish optimal protocols for their initiation, duration, and integration into standard sepsis management.

Septic shock poses a significant threat to life safety, with continuous blood purification as a primary treatment modality. Enhancing the therapeutic efficacy of continuous blood purification holds crucial implications for septic shock management. This study aims to observe the therapeutic efficacy of glucocorticoid-assisted continuous blood purification (CBP) in septic shock patients, providing valuable insights for future clinical treatments. A total of 200 septic shock patients admitted between October 2020 and January 2023 were selected and categorized into an observation group and a control group. The observation group (n=118) received glucocorticoid-assisted CBP, while the control group (n=82) received standard CBP. Changes in various parameters, including pH, blood urea nitrogen, serum creatinine, bicarbonate, inflammatory cytokines, T lymphocyte subsets, mean arterial pressure, pulmonary vascular permeability index, intrathoracic blood volume index, and cardiac index, were recorded before and after treatment. Complications during treatment were also documented. Post-treatment bicarbonate and cardiac index showed no significant difference between the two groups (P > .05). However, the observation group exhibited higher pH, mean arterial pressure, CD3+, CD4+, and CD8+ levels than the control group, as well as lower blood urea nitrogen, serum creatinine, inflammatory cytokines, and CD4+/CD8+ ratio (P < .05). Moreover, no notable difference in complication rates was identified between the groups (P > .05). Glucocorticoids-assisted continuous blood purification therapy effectively improves vital signs and immune function in septic shock patients, offering a more reliable guarantee for patient life safety.

Extracorporeal haemofiltration devices that selectively remove cytokines could represent an adjunctive treatment in inflammatory diseases. One such device is the “IL-6-Sieve”, wherein magnetic Anti-IL-6 Beads are introduced into an extracorporeal circuit via a Bead Adapter and then removed along with any surface-bound interleukin (IL)-6 by a Filter deployed in a Magnet, before the blood is returned to the patient. We report here on a series of animal studies, and a first-in-human study, on the safety of the IL-6-Sieve. Evaluations focused on the: (a) safety of Filter and Magnet placed in an extracorporeal circuit in sheep; (b) safety of Anti-IL-6 Beads—directly infused intravenously as worst case scenario of misuse; or injected into an extracorporeal circuit using the Bead Adapter, Filter, and Magnet as intended—in sheep; (c) biodistribution of Anti-IL-6 Beads intravenously infused in mice; and (d) safety of Filter and Magnet placed in an extracorporeal circuit in healthy volunteers. No serious adverse events or significant changes in vital signs or routine laboratory parameters occurred in any of the animals or humans. Although safety of the IL-6-Sieve requires further study, these initial evaluations represent a promising start for the translation of this new blood purification modality into clinical use.