Feihu Zhou1, Zhiyong Peng, Raghavan Murugan, John A Kellum. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, The Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute illness (CRISMA) Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although blood purification improves outcomes in animal studies of sepsis, results of clinical trials have been mixed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials to determine the association between various blood purification techniques and all-cause mortality in humans with sepsis. DATA SOURCES: We searched for relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database from January 1966 to May 2012. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion required a diagnosis of sepsis and comparison of blood purification techniques including hemofiltration, hemoperfusion, plasma exchange, or hemodialysis with no blood purification (control group). DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. Summary statistics, risk ratios, and CIs were calculated using random-effects modeling. Study quality was assessed using Jadad score, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's statistic. DATA SYNTHESIS: Overall, blood purification decreased mortality compared with no blood purification (35.7% vs 50.1%; risk ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.56-0.84]; p<0.001; 16 trials, n=827). However, these results were driven mainly by hemoperfusion (risk ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.50-0.80]; p<0.001; 10 trials, n=557) and plasma exchange (risk ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.42-0.96]; p=0.03; two trials, n=128). Pooling of all trials of blood purification for treatment of sepsis was no longer associated with lower mortality (risk ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.71-1.13]; p=0.36; eight trials, n=457) after excluding trials using polymyxin B hemoperfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Blood purification techniques including hemoperfusion, plasma exchange, and hemofiltration with hemoperfusion were associated with lower mortality in patients with sepsis. These results were mainly influenced by studies using polymyxin B hemoperfusion from Japan.
OBJECTIVES: Although blood purification improves outcomes in animal studies of sepsis, results of clinical trials have been mixed. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials to determine the association between various blood purification techniques and all-cause mortality in humans with sepsis. DATA SOURCES: We searched for relevant studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library database from January 1966 to May 2012. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion required a diagnosis of sepsis and comparison of blood purification techniques including hemofiltration, hemoperfusion, plasma exchange, or hemodialysis with no blood purification (control group). DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently selected studies and extracted data. Summary statistics, risk ratios, and CIs were calculated using random-effects modeling. Study quality was assessed using Jadad score, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's statistic. DATA SYNTHESIS: Overall, blood purification decreased mortality compared with no blood purification (35.7% vs 50.1%; risk ratio, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.56-0.84]; p<0.001; 16 trials, n=827). However, these results were driven mainly by hemoperfusion (risk ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.50-0.80]; p<0.001; 10 trials, n=557) and plasma exchange (risk ratio, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.42-0.96]; p=0.03; two trials, n=128). Pooling of all trials of blood purification for treatment of sepsis was no longer associated with lower mortality (risk ratio, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.71-1.13]; p=0.36; eight trials, n=457) after excluding trials using polymyxin B hemoperfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Blood purification techniques including hemoperfusion, plasma exchange, and hemofiltration with hemoperfusion were associated with lower mortality in patients with sepsis. These results were mainly influenced by studies using polymyxin B hemoperfusion from Japan.
Authors: P M Honore; J Jamez; M Wauthier; P A Lee; T Dugernier; B Pirenne; G Hanique; J R Matson Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Claudio Ronco; Alessandra Brendolan; Gerhard Lonnemann; Rinaldo Bellomo; Pasquale Piccinni; Antonio Digito; Maurizio Dan; Marco Irone; Giuseppe La Greca; Paola Inguaggiato; Umberto Maggiore; Concetta De Nitti; Mary Lou Wratten; Zaccaria Ricci; Ciro Tetta Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jicheng Zhang; Zhiyong Peng; Donald Maberry; Jacob Volpe; Jeremy D Kimmel; William J Federspiel; John A Kellum Journal: Blood Purif Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 2.614
Authors: Christine S Cocanour; Phillip Chang; Jared M Huston; Charles A Adams; Jose J Diaz; Charles B Wessel; Bonnie A Falcione; Graciela M Bauza; Raquel A Forsythe; Matthew R Rosengart Journal: Surg Infect (Larchmt) Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 2.150
Authors: Tomoko Fujii; Riki Ganeko; Yuki Kataoka; Toshi A Furukawa; Robin Featherstone; Kent Doi; Jean-Louis Vincent; Daniela Pasero; René Robert; Claudio Ronco; Sean M Bagshaw Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Bradley S Podd; Dennis W Simon; Santiago Lopez; Andrew Nowalk; Rajesh Aneja; Joseph A Carcillo Journal: Pediatr Clin North Am Date: 2017-08-18 Impact factor: 3.278