A pilot randomized study comparing high and low volume hemofiltration on vasopressor use in septic shock

Blood Purification for Adult Patients With Severe Infection or Sepsis/Septic Shock: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to conduct a comprehensive and updated systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the outcome benefits of various blood purification modalities for adult patients with severe infection or sepsis.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a search of PubMed, MEDLINE, clinical trial registries, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases with no language restrictions.

STUDY SELECTION

Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected.

DATA EXTRACTION

The primary outcome was overall mortality. The secondary outcomes were the length of mechanical ventilation (MV) days and ICU stay, incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), and kidney replacement therapy requirement.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included a total of 60 RCTs with 4,595 participants, comparing 16 blood purification modalities with 17 interventions. Polymyxin-B hemoperfusion (relative risk [RR]: 0.70; 95% CI, 0.57-0.86) and plasma exchange (RR: 0.61; 95% CI, 0.42-0.91) were associated with low mortality (very low and low certainty of evidence, respectively). Because of the presence of high clinical heterogeneity and intransitivity, the potential benefit of polymyxin-B hemoperfusion remained inconclusive. The analysis of secondary outcomes was limited by the scarcity of available studies. HA330 with high-volume continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH), HA330, and standard-volume CVVH were associated with shorter ICU stay. HA330 with high-volume CVVH, HA330, and standard-volume CVVH were beneficial in reducing MV days. None of the interventions showed a significant reduction in the incidence of AKI or the need for kidney replacement therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our NMA suggests that plasma exchange and polymyxin-B hemoperfusion may provide potential benefits for adult patients with severe infection or sepsis/septic shock when compared with standard care alone, but most comparisons were based on low or very low certainty evidence. The therapeutic effect of polymyxin-B hemoperfusion remains uncertain. Further RCTs are required to identify the specific patient population that may benefit from extracorporeal blood purification.

Surviving Sepsis After Burn Campaign

INTRODUCTION

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign was developed to improve outcomes for all patients with sepsis. Despite sepsis being the primary cause of death after thermal injury, burns have always been excluded from the Surviving Sepsis efforts. To improve sepsis outcomes in burn patients, an international group of burn experts developed the Surviving Sepsis After Burn Campaign (SSABC) as a testable guideline to improve burn sepsis outcomes.

METHODS

The International Society for Burn Injuries (ISBI) reached out to regional or national burn organizations to recommend members to participate in the program. Two members of the ISBI developed specific "patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcome" (PICO) questions that paralleled the 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign [1]. SSABC participants were asked to search the current literature and rate its quality for each topic. At the Congress of the ISBI, in Guadalajara, Mexico, August 28, 2022, a majority of the participants met to create "statements" based on the literature. The "summary statements" were then sent to all members for comment with the hope of developing an 80% consensus. After four reviews, a consensus statement for each topic was created or "no consensus" was reported.

RESULTS

The committee developed sixty statements within fourteen topics that provide guidance for the early treatment of sepsis in burn patients. These statements should be used to improve the care of sepsis in burn patients. The statements should not be considered as "static" comments but should rather be used as guidelines for future testing of the best treatments for sepsis in burn patients. They should be updated on a regular basis.

CONCLUSION

Members of the burn community from the around the world have developed the Surviving Sepsis After Burn Campaign guidelines with the goal of improving the outcome of sepsis in burn patients.

Timing of kidney replacement therapy initiation for acute kidney injury

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common condition among patients in intensive care units (ICUs) and is associated with high numbers of deaths. Kidney replacement therapy (KRT) is a blood purification technique used to treat the most severe forms of AKI. The optimal time to initiate KRT so as to improve clinical outcomes remains uncertain. This is an update of a review first published in 2018. This review complements another Cochrane review by the same authors: Intensity of continuous renal replacement therapy for acute kidney injury.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different timing (early and standard) of KRT initiation on death and recovery of kidney function in critically ill patients with AKI.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 4 August 2022 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register, ClinicalTrials and LILACS to 1 August 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We included all patients with AKI in the ICU regardless of age, comparing early versus standard KRT initiation. For safety and cost outcomes, we planned to include cohort studies and non-RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two authors. The random-effects model was used, and results were reported as risk ratios(RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference(MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies enrolling 4880 participants. Overall, most domains were assessed as being at low or unclear risk of bias. Compared to standard treatment, early KRT initiation may have little to no difference on the risk of death at day 30 (12 studies, 4826 participants: RR 0.97,95% CI 0.87 to 1.09; I²= 29%; low certainty evidence), and death after 30 days (7 studies, 4534 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07; I² = 6%; moderate certainty evidence). Early KRT initiation may make little or no difference to the risk of death or non-recovery of kidney function at 90 days (6 studies, 4011 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11; I² = 66%; low certainty evidence); CIs included both benefits and harms. Low certainty evidence showed early KRT initiation may make little or no difference to the number of patients who were free from KRT (10 studies, 4717 participants: RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.94 to1.22; I² = 55%) and recovery of kidney function among survivors who were free from KRT after day 30 (10 studies, 2510 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.07; I² = 69%) compared to standard treatment. High certainty evidence showed early KRT initiation increased the risk of hypophosphataemia (1 study, 2927 participants: RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.44), hypotension (5 studies, 3864 participants: RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.85; I² = 0%), cardiac-rhythm disorder (6 studies, 4483 participants: RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.75; I² = 16%), and infection (5 studies, 4252 participants: RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.77; I² = 0%); however, it is uncertain whether early KRT initiation increases or reduces the number of patients who experienced any adverse events (5 studies, 3983 participants: RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.68; I² = 91%; very low certainty evidence). Moderate certainty evidence showed early KRT initiation probably reduces the number of days in hospital (7 studies, 4589 participants: MD-2.45 days, 95% CI -4.75 to -0.14; I² = 10%) and length of stay in ICU (5 studies, 4240 participants: MD -1.01 days, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.42; I² = 0%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on mainly low to moderate certainty of the evidence, early KRT has no beneficial effect on death and may increase the recovery of kidney function. Earlier KRT probably reduces the length of ICU and hospital stay but increases the risk of adverse events. Further adequate-powered RCTs using robust and validated tools that complement clinical judgement are needed to define the optimal time of KRT in critical patients with AKI in order to improve their outcomes. The surgical AKI population should be considered in future research.

Sepsis Management for the Nephrologist

The definition of sepsis has evolved significantly over the past three decades. Today, sepsis is defined as a dysregulated host immune response to microbial invasion leading to end organ dysfunction. Septic shock is characterized by hypotension requiring vasopressors after adequate fluid resuscitation with elevated lactate. Early recognition and intervention remain hallmarks for sepsis management. We addressed the current literature and assimilated thought regarding optimum initial resuscitation of the patient with sepsis. A nuanced understanding of the physiology of lactate is provided in our review. Physiologic and practical knowledge of steroid and vasopressor therapy for sepsis is crucial and addressed. As blood purification may interest the nephrologist treating sepsis, we have also added a brief discussion of its status.

Cytokine Hemoadsorption During Cardiac Surgery Versus Standard Surgical Care for Infective Endocarditis (REMOVE): Results From a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Cardiac surgery often represents the only treatment option in patients with infective endocarditis (IE). However, IE surgery may lead to a sudden release of inflammatory mediators, which is associated with postoperative organ dysfunction. We investigated the effect of hemoadsorption during IE surgery on postoperative organ dysfunction.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, nonblinded, controlled trial assigned patients undergoing cardiac surgery for IE to hemoadsorption (integration of CytoSorb to cardiopulmonary bypass) or control. The primary outcome (change in sequential organ failure assessment score [ΔSOFA]) was defined as the difference between the mean total postoperative SOFA score, calculated maximally to the 9th postoperative day, and the basal SOFA score. The analysis was by modified intention to treat. A predefined intergroup comparison was performed using a linear mixed model for ΔSOFA including surgeon and baseline SOFA score as fixed effect covariates and with the surgical center as random effect. The SOFA score assesses dysfunction in 6 organ systems, each scored from 0 to 4. Higher scores indicate worsening dysfunction. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and vasopressor and renal replacement therapy. Cytokines were measured in the first 50 patients.

RESULTS

Between January 17, 2018, and January 31, 2020, a total of 288 patients were randomly assigned to hemoadsorption (n=142) or control (n=146). Four patients in the hemoadsorption and 2 in the control group were excluded because they did not undergo surgery. The primary outcome, ΔSOFA, did not differ between the hemoadsorption and the control group (1.79±3.75 and 1.93±3.53, respectively; 95% CI, -1.30 to 0.83; P=0.6766). Mortality at 30 days (21% hemoadsorption versus 22% control; P=0.782), duration of mechanical ventilation, and vasopressor and renal replacement therapy did not differ between groups. Levels of interleukin-1β and interleukin-18 at the end of integration of hemoadsorption to cardiopulmonary bypass were significantly lower in the hemoadsorption than in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized trial failed to demonstrate a reduction in postoperative organ dysfunction through intraoperative hemoadsorption in patients undergoing cardiac surgery for IE. Although hemoadsorption reduced plasma cytokines at the end of cardiopulmonary bypass, there was no difference in any of the clinically relevant outcome measures.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT03266302.

Extrakorporale Behandlungsstrategien der Sepsis

Hintergrund Die Mortalität der Sepsis bleibt auch im 21. Jahrhundert sehr hoch. Verschiedene adjuvante Strategien zur extrakorporalen Zytokinelimination wurden als zusätzliche therapeutische Maßnahmen bei Sepsis und septischem Schock untersucht.

Ziele Zusammenfassung einer Auswahl extrakorporaler Blutreinigungstechniken und der aktuellen Erkenntnisse in der klinischen Anwendung mit besonderem Schwerpunkt auf dem therapeutischen Plasmaaustausch.

Methoden Nicht systematische Literaturrecherche.

Ergebnisse Verschiedene extrakorporale Blutreinigungstechniken mit unterschiedlichen Evidenzniveaus hinsichtlich Zytokinelimination, Verbesserung der Hämodynamik und Verringerung der Mortalität werden derzeit klinisch eingesetzt. Die am ausführlichsten untersuchten Modalitäten umfassen die hochvolumige Hämofiltration/Dialyse mit und ohne High-Cut-off-Filter sowie Hämoadsorptionstechniken (einschließlich CytoSorb- und Polymyxin-B-Filter). Trotz teilweise ermutigender Beobachtungen bezüglich der Entfernung proinflammatorischer Zytokine und verbesserten Hämodynamik zeigten randomisierte Outcome-Studien bislang keinen positiven Einfluss auf das Überleben. Aufgrund der Verwendung von Spenderplasma als Substitutionsflüssigkeit stellt der therapeutische Plasmaaustausch das einzige Verfahren dar, das neben einer reinen Elimination zusätzlich verbrauchte protektive Faktoren ersetzen kann.

Schlussfolgerungen Die Anwendung extrakorporaler Blutreinigungsmethoden kann für Sepsispatienten außerhalb klinischer Studien bisher nicht empfohlen werden, da derzeit keine Beweise für ihre Wirksamkeit vorliegen. Zukünftige Untersuchungen sollten darauf abzielen, das Patientenkollektiv hinsichtlich des klinischen Schweregrads, des Zeitpunkts der Intervention und verschiedener inflammatorischer (Sub-)Phänotypen zu homogenisieren.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members.As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Vasopressor-Sparing Strategies in Patients with Shock: A Scoping-Review and an Evidence-Based Strategy Proposition

Despite the abundant literature on vasopressor therapy, few studies have focused on vasopressor-sparing strategies in patients with shock. We performed a scoping-review of the published studies evaluating vasopressor-sparing strategies by analyzing the results from randomized controlled trials conducted in patients with shock, with a focus on vasopressor doses and/or duration reduction. We analyzed 143 studies, mainly performed in septic shock. Our analysis demonstrated that several pharmacological and non-pharmacological strategies are associated with a decrease in the duration of vasopressor therapy. These strategies are as follows: implementing a weaning strategy, vasopressin use, systemic glucocorticoid administration, beta-blockers, and normothermia. On the contrary, early goal directed therapies, including fluid therapy, oral vasopressors, vitamin C, and renal replacement therapy, are not associated with an increase in vasopressor-free days. Based on these results, we proposed an evidence-based vasopressor management strategy.

Diagnosis and Management of Intraabdominal Infection: Guidelines by the Chinese Society of Surgical Infection and Intensive Care and the Chinese College of Gastrointestinal Fistula Surgeons

The Chinese guidelines for IAI presented here were developed by a panel that included experts from the fields of surgery, critical care, microbiology, infection control, pharmacology, and evidence-based medicine. All questions were structured in population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes format, and evidence profiles were generated. Recommendations were generated following the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system or Best Practice Statement (BPS), when applicable. The final guidelines include 45 graded recommendations and 17 BPSs, including the classification of disease severity, diagnosis, source control, antimicrobial therapy, microbiologic evaluation, nutritional therapy, other supportive therapies, diagnosis and management of specific IAIs, and recognition and management of source control failure. Recommendations on fluid resuscitation and organ support therapy could not be formulated and thus were not included. Accordingly, additional high-quality clinical studies should be performed in the future to address the clinicians' concerns.

Blood purification for sepsis: an overview

Sepsis is a life-threatening organ failure exacerbated by a maladaptive infection response from the host, and is one of the major causes of mortality in the intensive care unit. In recent decades, several extracorporeal blood purification techniques have been developed to manage sepsis by acting on both the infectious agents themselves and the host immune response. This research aims to summarize recent progress on extracorporeal blood purification technologies applied for sepsis, discuss unanswered questions on renal replacement therapy for septic patients, and present a decision-making strategy for practitioners.

Dose of Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy in Critically Ill Patients: A Bona Fide Quality Indicator

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common in critically ill patients, and renal replacement therapy (RRT) constitutes an important aspect of acute management during critical illness. Continuous RRT (CRRT) is frequently utilized in intensive care unit settings, particularly in patients with severe AKI, fluid overload, and hemodynamic instability. The main goal of CRRT is to timely optimize solute control, acid-base, and volume status. Total effluent dose of CRRT is a deliverable that depends on multiple factors and therefore should be systematically monitored (prescribed vs. delivered) and iteratively adjusted in a sustainable mode. In this manuscript, we review current evidence of CRRT dosing and provide recommendations for its implementation as a quality indicator of CRRT delivery.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020)

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020), a Japanese-specific set of clinical practice guidelines for sepsis and septic shock created as revised from J-SSCG 2016 jointly by the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, was first released in September 2020 and published in February 2021. An English-language version of these guidelines was created based on the contents of the original Japanese-language version. The purpose of this guideline is to assist medical staff in making appropriate decisions to improve the prognosis of patients undergoing treatment for sepsis and septic shock. We aimed to provide high-quality guidelines that are easy to use and understand for specialists, general clinicians, and multidisciplinary medical professionals. J-SSCG 2016 took up new subjects that were not present in SSCG 2016 (e.g., ICU-acquired weakness [ICU-AW], post-intensive care syndrome [PICS], and body temperature management). The J-SSCG 2020 covered a total of 22 areas with four additional new areas (patient- and family-centered care, sepsis treatment system, neuro-intensive treatment, and stress ulcers). A total of 118 important clinical issues (clinical questions, CQs) were extracted regardless of the presence or absence of evidence. These CQs also include those that have been given particular focus within Japan. This is a large-scale guideline covering multiple fields; thus, in addition to the 25 committee members, we had the participation and support of a total of 226 members who are professionals (physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, clinical engineers, and pharmacists) and medical workers with a history of sepsis or critical illness. The GRADE method was adopted for making recommendations, and the modified Delphi method was used to determine recommendations by voting from all committee members. As a result, 79 GRADE-based recommendations, 5 Good Practice Statements (GPS), 18 expert consensuses, 27 answers to background questions (BQs), and summaries of definitions and diagnosis of sepsis were created as responses to 118 CQs. We also incorporated visual information for each CQ according to the time course of treatment, and we will also distribute this as an app. The J-SSCG 2020 is expected to be widely used as a useful bedside guideline in the field of sepsis treatment both in Japan and overseas involving multiple disciplines.

Changing the terminology from kidney replacement therapy to kidney support therapy

Kidney replacement therapy (KRT) is a common supportive treatment for renal dysfunction, especially acute kidney injury. However, critically ill or immunosuppressed patients with renal dysfunction often have dysfunction in other organs as well. To improve patient outcomes, clinicians began to initiate kidney replacement therapy in situations where nonrenal conditions may lead to acute kidney injury, such as septic shock, hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, veno-occlusive renal disease, cardiopulmonary bypass, chemotherapy, tumor lysis syndrome, hyperammonemia, and various others. In this review, we discuss the use of various modes of kidney replacement therapy in treating renal and nonrenal complications to illustrate why kidney support therapy is a more appropriate terminology than kidney replacement therapy.

[Extracorporeal techniques for blood purification in sepsis: an update]

BACKGROUND

Despite ongoing development, mortality in sepsis remains considerable. Various techniques for extracorporeal cytokine removal have been described, but evidence remains conflicting.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article is to summarize currently used extracorporeal blood purification techniques and their evidence.

METHODS

Non-systematic literature review RESULTS: There are currently various blood purification techniques used with different levels of evidence regarding cytokine removal, vasopressor sparing effects and reduction of mortality, including high-volume dialysis with and without high cut-off filters, special adsorption filters (including CytoSorb®, CytoSorbents Europe, Berlin, Germany, and polymyxin‑B filters). There is development regarding therapeutic plasma exchange. For some blood purification techniques such as combined plasma filtration and adsorption, multicentric randomized studies found a negative effect on survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a theoretical rationale, the use of blood purification methods cannot be recommended for sepsis patients due to the lack of evidence of their efficacy. Heterogeneous inflammatory responses in sepsis render conduction of larger trials difficult. Thus, future studies should cautiously identify appropriate sepsis subtypes to be included. Available techniques should be chosen as individualized complementary treatments and not as competing systems.

Blood Purification Techniques for Sepsis and Septic AKI

Sepsis is the primary cause of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients. During the past decades, several extracorporeal blood purification techniques have been developed for sepsis and sepsis-induced acute kidney injury management. These therapies could act on both the infectious agent itself and the host immune response. In this article, we review the available literature discussing the different extracorporeal blood purification techniques, including high-volume hemofiltration, cascade hemofiltration, hemoperfusion, coupled plasma filtration adsorption, plasma exchange, and specific optimized renal replacement therapy membranes.

The therapeutic effect of high-volume hemofiltration on sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Sepsis remains the leading cause of death in the intensive care unit (ICU), despite the treatment of sepsis has progressed. As a mode in continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) has been widely used in the treatment of sepsis. Whether high ultrafiltrate volume in CVVH is beneficial for sepsis survival remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the treatment effect of high-volume hemofiltration (HVHF) on sepsis.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted on the Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library to June 21, 2019, the keywords included “sepsis” “continuous blood purification” “continuous renal replacement therapy” “continuous veno-venous hemofiltration” and “continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration”. Summery statistic in this review was risk ratio (RR) and was performed by RevMan 5.2.

Results

Five randomized controlled trials (RCT) were included which contained 241 participants. Mortality related endpoints and other observations (length of stay, organ function evaluation, effect on hemodynamics, cytokine clearance and respiratory function) were used to assess the treatment effect of HVHF in sepsis. Three trials reported 28-day mortality, one of three trails also reported 60- and 90-day mortality; one trail did not specify the type of mortality; the fifth article reported hospital mortality. The pooled risk ratio for three trails of 28-day mortality was 0.96 (0.67, 1.38). Three trails reported length of stay related data. Four trails reported organ failure related scores. All trails reported the effect of HVHF on hemodynamics. Three trails reported cytokine clearance. Only two trails reported respiratory function related indicators. After analysis, the risk of bias in all trails was low.

Conclusions

The meta-analysis results suggested that treatment programs contained HVHF did not change the outcomes of patients with sepsis. So far, related studies on the use of HVHF in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock is rare. Researchers should consider additional large multicenter randomized controlled trials.

Reporting of Organ Support Outcomes in Septic Shock Randomized Controlled Trials: A Methodologic Review-The Sepsis Organ Support Study

OBJECTIVES

Many recent randomized controlled trials in the field of septic shock failed to demonstrate a benefit on mortality. Randomized controlled trials increasingly report organ support duration and organ support-free days as primary or secondary outcomes. We conducted a methodologic systematic review to assess how organ support outcomes were defined and reported in septic shock randomized controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized controlled trials published between January 2004 and March 2018 that involved septic shock adults and assessed organ support duration and/or organ support-free days for hemodynamic support, respiratory support, or renal replacement therapy.

DATA EXTRACTION

For each randomized controlled trial, we extracted the definitions of organ support duration and organ support-free days. We particularly evaluated how nonsurvivors were accounted for. Study authors were contacted to provide any missing information regarding these definitions.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included 28 randomized controlled trials. Organ support duration and organ support-free days outcomes were reported in 17 and 15 randomized controlled trials, respectively, for hemodynamic support, 15 and 15 for respiratory support, and five and nine for renal replacement therapy. Nonsurvivors were included in the organ support duration calculation in 13 of 14 randomized controlled trials (93%) for hemodynamic support and nine of 10 (90%) for respiratory support. The organ support-free days definition for hemodynamic support, respiratory support, and renal replacement therapy was reported in six of 15 randomized controlled trials (40%), eight of 15 randomized controlled trials (53%), and six of nine randomized controlled trials (67%) reporting an organ support-free days outcome, respectively. Of these, one half assigned "0" to nonsurvivors, and the other half attributed one point per day alive free of organ support up to a predefined time point.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the heterogeneity and infrequency of organ support duration/organ support-free days outcome reporting in septic shock trials. When reported, the definitions of these outcome measures and methods of calculation are also infrequently reported, in particular how nonsurvivors were accounted for, which may have an important impact on interpretation.

Immunotherapy in sepsis - brake or accelerate?

Sepsis, a life threating syndrome characterized by organ failure after infection, is the most common cause of death in hospitalized patients. The treatment of sepsis is generally supportive in nature, involving the administration of intravenous fluids, vasoactive substances and oxygen plus antibiotics to eliminate the pathogen. No drugs have been approved specifically for the treatment of sepsis, and clinical trials of potential therapies have failed to reduce mortality - suggesting that new approaches are needed. Abnormalities in the immune response elicited by the pathogen, ranging from excessive inflammation to immunosuppression, contribute to disease pathogenesis. Although hundreds of immunomodulatory agents are potentially available, it remains unclear which patient benefits from which immune therapy at a given time point. Results indicate the importance of personalized therapy, specifically the need to identify the type of intervention required by each individual patient at a given point in the disease process. To address this issue will require using biomarkers to stratify patients based on their individual immune status. This article reviews recent and ongoing clinical investigations using immunostimulatory or immunosuppressive therapies against sepsis including non-pharmacological and novel preclinical approaches.

Renal Replacement Therapy in the Critical Care Setting

Renal replacement therapy (RRT) is frequently required to manage critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). There is limited evidence to support the current practice of RRT in intensive care units (ICUs). Recently published randomized control trials (RCTs) have further questioned our understanding of RRT in critical care. The optimal timing and dosing continues to be debatable; however, current evidence suggests delayed strategy with less intensive dosing when utilising RRT. Various modes of RRT are complementary to each other with no definite benefits to mortality or renal function preservation. Choice of anticoagulation remains regional citrate anticoagulation in continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) with lower bleeding risk when compared with heparin. RRT can be used to support resistant cardiac failure, but evolving therapies such as haemoperfusion are currently not recommended in sepsis.

Acute kidney injury from sepsis: current concepts, epidemiology, pathophysiology, prevention and treatment

Sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (S-AKI) is a frequent complication of the critically ill patient and is associated with unacceptable morbidity and mortality. Prevention of S-AKI is difficult because by the time patients seek medical attention, most have already developed acute kidney injury. Thus, early recognition is crucial to provide supportive treatment and limit further insults. Current diagnostic criteria for acute kidney injury has limited early detection; however, novel biomarkers of kidney stress and damage have been recently validated for risk prediction and early diagnosis of acute kidney injury in the setting of sepsis. Recent evidence shows that microvascular dysfunction, inflammation, and metabolic reprogramming are 3 fundamental mechanisms that may play a role in the development of S-AKI. However, more mechanistic studies are needed to better understand the convoluted pathophysiology of S-AKI and to translate these findings into potential treatment strategies and add to the promising pharmacologic approaches being developed and tested in clinical trials.

Effect of High-Volume Hemofiltration in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Studies have been carried out to assess the efficacy of high-volume hemofiltration (HVHF) among critically ill patients. However, it is currently unclear whether HVHF is really valuable in critically ill patients.

Material/Methods

Randomized controlled trials evaluating HVHF for critically ill adult patients were included in this analysis. Three databases were searched up to July 27, 2018. The relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined.

Results

Twenty-one randomized controlled trials were included in this analysis. Overall, HVHF was associated with lower mortality compared with control measures (RR=0.88, 95% CI=0.81 to 0.96, P=0.004) in critically ill patients. Sub-analysis revealed HVHF reduced mortality in sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, but no similar effect in other diseases. HVHF decreased levels of plasma tumor necrosis factor and interleukin 6. The heart rate of the HVHF group after treatment was slower than the control group, while we found higher mean arterial pressure in the HVHF group, but oxygenation index was not significantly different between the two groups. HVHF had no remarkable influence on acute physiological and chronic health evaluation score (APACHE II score) compared with the control group.

Conclusions

HVHF might be superior to conventional therapy in critically ill patients.

The efficacy of renal replacement therapy strategies for septic-acute kidney injury: A PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Renal replacement therapy (RRT) is the main treatment for patients with sepsis-induced acute kidney injury (SAKI). However, the choice of RRT strategy remains controversial.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the effectiveness of RRT variants in SAKI patients by a network meta-analysis.

METHODS

This study searched the literature in the PubMed, EmBase, and Cochrane Library databases up to August 18, 2018. The outcomes of the analysis were the survival rate, renal recovery rate, intensive care unit (ICU) duration, and hospital duration.

RESULTS

Twenty-two articles were included in the analysis. The results showed that only the negative control was inferior to the regimens of RRT with polymyxin B-immobilized fiber (PMXF), PMXF alone, continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH), CVVH plus alkaline phosphatase (AP), continuous venovenous hemodialysis (CVVHD), high-volume CVVH, and extra high-volume CVVH in terms of the survival rate. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking , RRT with PMXF (84.4%) and PMXF (84.3%) were the treatments most likely to improve the survival rate among SAKI patients, followed by CVVH plus AP (69%). Continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF), extra high-volume CVVHDF, intermittent venovenous hemodiafiltration (IVVHDF), and low-volume CVVHDF resulted in very similar survival rates. CVVH plus AP conferred relative advantages in the renal recovery rate and ICU duration.

CONCLUSION

CVVH, CVVHD, and their derived RRT strategies can improve survival rates in SAKI patients, but there is no significant difference among the RRT strategies. There was also no significant difference in the survival rate among CVVHDF, IVVHDF, and their derived strategies. More high-quality randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes are needed for further research.

Timing of renal replacement therapy initiation for acute kidney injury

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common condition among patients in intensive care units (ICUs), and is associated with high death. Renal replacement therapy (RRT) is a blood purification technique used to treat the most severe forms of AKI. The optimal time to initiate RRT so as to improve clinical outcomes remains uncertain.This review complements another Cochrane review by the same authors: Intensity of continuous renal replacement therapy for acute kidney injury.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different timing (early and standard) of RRT initiation on death and recovery of kidney function in critically ill patients with AKI.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 23 August 2018 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched LILACS to 11 September 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We included all patients with AKI in ICU regardless of age, comparing early versus standard RRT initiation. For safety and cost outcomes we planned to include cohort studies and non-RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two authors. The random-effects model was used and results were reported as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies enrolling 1084 participants. Overall, most domains were assessed as being at low or unclear risk of bias. Compared to standard treatment, early initiation may reduce the risk of death at day 30, although the 95% CI does not rule out an increased risk (5 studies, 1084 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.13; I2 = 52%; low certainty evidence); and probably reduces the death after 30 days post randomisation (4 studies, 1056 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10; I2= 29%; moderate certainty evidence); however in both results the CIs included a reduction and an increase of death. Earlier start may reduce the risk of death or non-recovery kidney function (5 studies, 1076 participants: RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.05; I2= 54%; low certainty evidence). Early strategy may increase the number of patients who were free of RRT after RRT discontinuation (5 studies, 1084 participants: RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.40; I2= 58%; low certainty evidence) and probably slightly increases the recovery of kidney function among survivors who discontinued RRT after day 30 (5 studies, 572 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.06; I2= 0%; moderate certainty evidence) compared to standard; however the lower limit of CI includes the null effect. Early RRT initiation increased the number of patients who experienced adverse events (4 studies, 899 participants: RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.16; I2 = 0%; high certainty evidence). Compared to standard, earlier RRT start may reduce the number of days in ICU (4 studies, 1056 participants: MD -1.78 days, 95% CI -3.70 to 0.13; I2 = 90%; low certainty evidence), but the CI included benefit and harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based mainly on low quality of evidence identified, early RRT may reduce the risk of death and may improve the recovery of kidney function in critically patients with AKI, however the 95% CI indicates that early RRT might worsen these outcomes. There was an increased risk of adverse events with early RRT. Further adequate-powered RCTs using appropriate criteria to define the optimal time of RRT are needed to reduce the imprecision of the results.

Extracorporeal techniques for the treatment of critically ill patients with sepsis beyond conventional blood purification therapy: the promises and the pitfalls

Sepsis is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. It is characterized by a dysregulated immune response to infections that results in life-threatening organ dysfunction and even death. Bacterial cell wall components (endotoxin or lipopolysaccharide), known as pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), as well as damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) released by host injured cells, are well-recognized triggers resulting in the elevation of both pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines. Understanding this complex pathophysiology has led to the development of therapeutic strategies aimed at restoring a balanced immune response by eliminating/deactivating these inflammatory mediators. Different extracorporeal techniques have been studied in recent years in the hope of maximizing the effect of renal replacement therapy in modulating the exaggerated host inflammatory response, including the use of high volume hemofiltration (HVHF), high cut-off (HCO) membranes, adsorption alone, and coupled plasma filtration adsorption (CPFA). These strategies are not widely utilized in practice, depending on resources and local expertise. The literature examining their use in septic patients is growing, but the evidence to support their use at this stage is considered of low level. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive overview of the technical aspects, clinical applications, and associated side effects of these techniques.

The Japanese clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury 2016

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a syndrome which has a broad range of etiologic factors depending on different clinical settings. Because AKI has significant impacts on prognosis in any clinical settings, early detection and intervention is necessary to improve the outcomes of AKI patients. This clinical guideline for AKI was developed by a multidisciplinary approach with nephrology, intensive care medicine, blood purification, and pediatrics. Of note, clinical practice for AKI management which was widely performed in Japan was also evaluated with comprehensive literature search.

Effect of high-volume hemofiltration on mortality in critically ill patients: A PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

High-volume hemofiltration (HVHF) is widely used for blood purification in critically ill patients with systemic inflammatory syndromes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of HVHF on mortality at different follow-up periods in critically ill patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library through April 2017 to identify trials that evaluated the effect of HVHF on mortality in critically ill patients. Summary relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were employed to calculate the treatment effect using a random effects model. Eleven trials involving 1048 critically ill patients were included in this study.

RESULTS

The summary results indicated no significant differences between HVHF and usual care for the incidence of 28-day mortality (RR: 0.93; 95%CI: 0.80-1.08; P = .321), 7-day mortality (RR: 0.72; 95%CI: 0.50-1.03; P = .072), 60-day mortality (RR: 1.00; 95%CI: 0.86-1.16; P = .997), and 90-day mortality (RR: 1.01; 95%CI: 0.88-1.16; P = .927). Subgroup analysis suggested HVHF significantly reduced the risk of 28-day mortality (RR: 0.64; 95%CI: 0.42-0.97; P = .035) if pooled the study sample size < 100.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest HVHF significantly reduced the incidence of 28-day mortality when pooled the study sample size < 100. Further, HVHF had a marginal effect on the incidence of 7-day mortality.

The Japanese Clinical Practice Guideline for acute kidney injury 2016

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a syndrome which has a broad range of etiologic factors depending on different clinical settings. Because AKI has significant impacts on prognosis in any clinical settings, early detection and intervention are necessary to improve the outcomes of AKI patients. This clinical guideline for AKI was developed by a multidisciplinary approach with nephrology, intensive care medicine, blood purification, and pediatrics. Of note, clinical practice for AKI management which was widely performed in Japan was also evaluated with comprehensive literature search.

High-volume hemofiltration in adult burn patients with septic shock and acute kidney injury: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Sepsis and septic shock occur commonly in severe burns. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is also common and often results as a consequence of sepsis. Mortality is unacceptably high in burn patients who develop AKI requiring renal replacement therapy and is presumed to be even higher when combined with septic shock. We hypothesized that high-volume hemofiltration (HVHF) as a blood purification technique would be beneficial in this population.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial to evaluate the impact of HVHF on the hemodynamic profile of burn patients with septic shock and AKI involving seven burn centers in the United States. Subjects randomized to the HVHF were prescribed a dose of 70 ml/kg/hour for 48 hours while control subjects were managed in standard fashion in accordance with local practices.

RESULTS

During a 4-year period, a total of nine subjects were enrolled for the intervention during the ramp-in phase and 28 subjects were randomized, 14 each into the control and HVHF arms respectively. The study was terminated due to slow enrollment. Ramp-in subjects were included along with those randomized in the final analysis. Our primary endpoint, the vasopressor dependency index, decreased significantly at 48 hours compared to baseline in the HVHF group (p = 0.007) while it remained no different in the control arm. At 14 days, the multiple organ dysfunction syndrome score decreased significantly in the HVHF group when compared to the day of treatment initiation (p = 0.02). No changes in inflammatory markers were detected during the 48-hour intervention period. No significant difference in survival was detected. No differences in adverse events were noted between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

HVHF was effective in reversing shock and improving organ function in burn patients with septic shock and AKI, and appears safe. Whether reversal of shock in these patients can improve survival is yet to be determined.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01213914 . Registered 30 September 2010.

High-dose versus low-dose haemofiltration for the treatment of critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of high-dose versus low-dose haemofiltration on the survival of critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). We hypothesised that high-dose treatments are not associated with a higher risk of mortality.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

SETTING

Randomised controlled trials and two-arm prospective and retrospective studies were included.

PARTICIPANTS

Critically ill patients with AKI.

INTERVENTIONS

Continuous renal replacement therapy.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes: 90-day mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, hospital mortality; secondary outcomes: length of ICU and hospital stay.

RESULT

Eight studies including 2970 patients were included in the analysis. Pooled results showed no significant difference in the 90-mortality rate between patients treated with high-dose or low-dose haemofiltration (pooled OR=0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.11, p=0.32). Findings were similar for ICU (pooled OR=1.12, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.34, p=0.21) and hospital mortality (pooled OR=1.03, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.30, p=0.84). Length of ICU and hospital stay were similar between high-dose and low-dose groups. Pooled results are not overly influenced by any one study, different cut-off points of prescribed dose or different cut-off points of delivered dose. Meta-regression analysis indicated that the results were not affected by the percentage of patients with sepsis or septic shock.

CONCLUSION

High-dose and low-dose haemofiltration produce similar outcomes with respect to mortality and length of ICU and hospital stay in critically ill patients with AKI.This study was not registered at the time the data were collected and analysed. It has since been registered on 17 February 2017 at http://www.researchregistry.com/, registration number: reviewregistry211.

High-volume haemofiltration for sepsis in adults

BACKGROUND

Severe sepsis and septic shock are leading causes of death in the intensive care unit (ICU), despite advances in the treatment of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, including early recognition, appropriate treatment with antibiotics and support of organs that may have been affected by the illness. High-volume haemofiltration (HVHF) is a blood purification technique that may improve outcomes in severe sepsis or septic shock. The technique of HVHF has evolved from renal replacement therapies used in the ICU to treat critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). This review was first published in 2013 and was updated in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether HVHF improves outcomes in critically ill adults admitted to the intensive care unit with severe sepsis or septic shock. The primary outcome of this systematic review is patient mortality; secondary outcomes include duration of stay, severity of organ dysfunction and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated version, we extended searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Web of Science and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) to 31 December 2015. The original search was performed in 2011. We also searched trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials comparing HVHF or high-volume haemodiafiltration versus standard or usual dialysis therapy, as well as RCTs and quasi-randomized trials comparing HVHF or high-volume haemodiafiltration versus no similar dialysis therapy. These studies involved adults treated in critical care units.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. We sought additional information from trialists as required.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four randomized trials involving 200 participants. Owing to small numbers of studies and participants, it was not possible to combine data for all outcomes. Two trials reported 28-day mortality, and one trial reported hospital mortality; in the third trial, the number of deaths stated did not match the quoted mortality rates. The pooled risk ratio (95% confidence interval) for 28-day mortality associated with HVHF was 0.89 (0.60 to 1.32, two trials, 146 participants, low-quality evidence). One study (137 participants, low-quality evidence) reported length of stay in the ICU. Two trials (170 participants, low-quality evidence) reported organ dysfunction, but we could not pool results owing to reporting differences. Three studies (189 participants, low-quality evidence) reported on haemodynamic changes, but we could not pool results owing to reporting differences. Investigators reported no adverse events. Overall, the included studies had low risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Investigators reported no adverse effects of HVHF (low-quality evidence). The results of this meta-analysis show that very few studies have been conducted to investigate the use of HVHF in critically ill patients with severe sepsis or septic shock (four studies, 201 participants, low-quality evidence). Researchers should consider additional randomized controlled trials that are large and multi-centred and have clinically relevant outcome measures. The cost-effectiveness of HVHF should also be studied. .

Intensity of continuous renal replacement therapy for acute kidney injury

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common condition among patients in intensive care units (ICU), and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is a blood purification technique used to treat the most severe forms of AKI but its effectiveness remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different intensities (intensive and less intensive) of CRRT on mortality and recovery of kidney function in critically ill AKI patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 9 February 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched LILACS to 9 February 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We included all patients with AKI in ICU regardless of age, comparing intensive (usually a prescribed dose ≥35 mL/kg/h) versus less intensive CRRT (usually a prescribed dose < 35 mL/kg/h). For safety and cost outcomes we planned to include cohort studies and non-RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted independently by two authors. The random-effects model was used and results were reported as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies enrolling 3185 participants. Studies were assessed as being at low or unclear risk of bias. There was no significant difference between intensive versus less intensive CRRT on mortality risk at day 30 (5 studies, 2402 participants: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.08; I² = 75%; low quality of evidence) or after 30 days post randomisation (5 studies, 2759 participants: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.06; I² = 65%; low quality of evidence). There were no significant differences between intensive versus less intensive CRRT in the numbers of patients who were free of RRT after CRRT discontinuation (5 studies, 2402 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.37; I² = 71%; low quality of evidence) or among survivors at day 30 (5 studies, 1415 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11; I² = 69%; low quality of evidence) and day 90 (3 studies, 988 participants: RR 0.98, IC 95% 0.94 to 1.01, I² = 0%; moderatequality of evidence). There were no significant differences between intensive and less intensive CRRT on the number of days in hospital (2 studies, 1665 participants): MD -0.23 days, 95% CI -3.35 to 2.89; I² = 8%; low quality of evidence) and the number of days in ICU (2 studies, 1665 participants: MD -0.58 days, 95% CI -3.73 to 2.56, I² = 19%; low quality of evidence). Intensive CRRT increased the risk of hypophosphataemia (1 study, 1441 participants: RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.31; high quality evidence) compared to less intensive CRRT. There was no significant differences between intensive and less intensive CRRT on numbers of patients who experienced adverse events (3 studies, 1753 participants: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.61; I² = 16%; moderate quality of evidence). In the subgroups analysis by severity of illness and by aetiology of AKI, intensive CRRT would seem to reduce the risk mortality (2 studies, 531 participants: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88; I² = 0%; high quality of evidence) only in the subgroup of patients with post-surgical AKI.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current low quality of evidence identified, more intensive CRRT did not demonstrate beneficial effects on mortality or recovery of kidney function in critically ill patients with AKI. There was an increased risk of hypophosphataemia with more intense CRRT. Intensive CRRT reduced the risk of mortality in patients with post-surgical AKI.

Effect of pulse high-volume hemofiltration on Toll-like receptor in patients with severe sepsis

The expression level and prognosis of Toll-like receptor 2 (TLR2) mRNA in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of patients with severe sepsis after applying pulse high-volume hemofiltration (PHVHF) were investigated. Sustained PHVHF treatment was carried out on 40 patients on the basis of conventional treatment for up to 72 h. Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II scores of patients were compared before and after the treatment. CD4⁺, CD8⁺ lymphocyte counts and ratios in the peripheral blood were detected using FASort before and 24 and 48 h of PHVHF treatment. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was adopted to detect tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin-10 (IL-10) concentrations in plasma at different time points before and after 24, 48 and 72 h of treatment, while semi-quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction technology was used to test TLR2 mRNA expression. After PHVHF treatment, APACHE II, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were decreased (P<0.05). After 72 h of PHVHF treat-ment, TNF-α, IL-10, TLR2 mRNA expression levels in the plasma of patients were significantly decreased compared to before treatment (P<0.05), and the IL-10 / TNF-α ratio was much higher than before treatment (p<0.05). In conclusion, PHVHF can restore the pro-inflammatory/anti-inflammatory balance of the body, thereby improving the overall condition of the patients by removing inflammatory mediators and lowering TLR2 expression of mononuclear cell surface in peripheral blood.

Early High-Volume Hemofiltration versus Standard Care for Post-Cardiac Surgery Shock. The HEROICS Study

RATIONALE

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.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether early HVHF decreases all-cause mortality 30 days after randomization.

METHODS

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.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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).

Extracorporeal renal replacement therapies in the treatment of sepsis: where are we?

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common among the critically ill, affecting approximately 40% of patients. Sepsis is the cause of AKI in almost 50% of cases of intensive care patients, however, any evidence-based treatment for sepsis-associated AKI is lacking. Furthermore, the underlying pathophysiology of septic AKI is inadequately understood given the disparity between severe functional changes and limited tubular injury. What is clear is that within this complex interplay leading to septic AKI, the inflammatory response plays a pivotal role and hence modulation of this response may translate to improved outcomes. We outline the use of extracorporeal therapies in the treatment of sepsis and septic AKI. We consider the classic aspects of extracorporeal renal replacement therapy including indications, timing, and delivered dose. The various techniques that currently are used to try and achieve immune homeostasis also are outlined. As well as discussing the evidence accumulated to date, we also suggest possibilities for the future treatment of our patients.

Renal replacement therapy in adult and pediatric intensive care : Recommendations by an expert panel from the French Intensive Care Society (SRLF) with the French Society of Anesthesia Intensive Care (SFAR) French Group for Pediatric Intensive Care Emergencies (GFRUP) the French Dialysis Society (SFD)

Acute renal failure (ARF) in critically ill patients is currently very frequent and requires renal replacement therapy (RRT) in many patients. During the last 15 years, several studies have considered important issues regarding the use of RRT in ARF, like the time to initiate the therapy, the dialysis dose, the types of catheter, the choice of technique, and anticoagulation. However, despite an abundant literature, conflicting results do not provide evidence on RRT implementation. We present herein recommendations for the use of RRT in adult and pediatric intensive care developed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system by an expert group of French Intensive Care Society (SRLF), with the participation of the French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care (SFAR), the French Group for Pediatric Intensive Care and Emergencies (GFRUP), and the French Dialysis Society (SFD). The recommendations cover 4 fields: criteria for RRT initiation, technical aspects (access routes, membranes, anticoagulation, reverse osmosis water), practical aspects (choice of the method, peritoneal dialysis, dialysis dose, adjustments), and safety (procedures and training, dialysis catheter management, extracorporeal circuit set-up). These recommendations have been designed on a practical point of view to provide guidance for intensivists in their daily practice.

Very high volume hemofiltration with the Cascade system in septic shock patients

PURPOSE

We compared hemodynamic and biological effects of the Cascade system, which uses very high volume hemofiltration (HVHF) (120 mL kg(-1) h(-1)), with those of usual care in patients with septic shock.

METHODS

Multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label trial in three intensive care units (ICU). Adults with septic shock with administration of epinephrine/norepinephrine were eligible. Patients were randomized to usual care plus HVHF (Cascade group), or usual care alone (control group). Primary end point was the number of catecholamine-free days up to 28 days after randomization. Secondary end points were number of days free of mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy (RRT) or ICU up to 90 days, and 7-, 28-, and 90-day mortality.

RESULTS

We included 60 patients (29 Cascade, 31 usual care). Baseline characteristics were comparable. Median number of catecholamine-free days was 22 [IQR 11-23] vs 20 [0-25] for Cascade vs control; there was no significant difference even after adjustment. There was no significant difference in number of mechanical ventilation-free days or ICU requirement. Median number of RRT-free days was 85 [46-90] vs 74 [0-90] for Cascade vs control groups, p = 0.42. By multivariate analysis, the number of RRT-free days was significantly higher in the Cascade group (up to 25 days higher after adjustment). There was no difference in mortality at 7, 28, or 90 days.

CONCLUSION

Very HVHF using the Cascade system can safely be used in patients presenting with septic shock, but it was not associated with a reduction in the need for catecholamines during the first 28 days.

Sepsis-Induced Acute Kidney Injury

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a serious yet potentially reversible complication of sepsis. Several molecular mechanisms involved in the development of septic AKI have been identified. These mechanisms may be important targets in the development of future therapies. This review highlights the role of the innate immune response to sepsis and its downstream effects on kidney structure and function with special reference to the adaptive cellular response and glomerular hemodynamic changes. In addition, current evidence surrounding the management of patients with septic AKI is summarized. Finally, potential novel therapies for septic AKI are presented.

Effects of high volume haemodiafiltration on inflammatory response profile and microcirculation in patients with septic shock

BACKGROUND

High volumes of haemofiltration are used in septic patients to control systemic inflammation and improve patient outcomes. We aimed to clarify if extended intermittent high volume online haemodiafiltration (HVHDF) influences patient haemodynamics and cytokines profile and/or has effect upon sublingual microcirculation in critically ill septic shock patients.

METHODS

Main haemodynamic and clinical variables and concentrations of cytokines were evaluated before and after HVHDF in 19 patients with septic shock requiring renal replacement therapy due to acute kidney injury. Sublingual microcirculation was assessed in 9 patients.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) time of HVHDF was 9.4 (1.8) hours. The median convective volume was 123 mL/kg/h. The mean (SD) dose of norepinephrine required to maintain mean arterial pressure at the target range of 70-80 mmHg decreased from 0.40 (0.43) μg/kg/min to 0.28 (0.33) μg/kg/min (p = 0.009). No significant changes in the measured cytokines or microcirculatory parameters were observed before and after HVHDF.

CONCLUSIONS

The single-centre study suggests that extended HVHDF results in decrease of norepinephrine requirement in patients with septic shock. Haemodynamic improvement was not associated with decrease in circulating cytokine levels, and sublingual microcirculation was well preserved.

The Japanese guidelines for the management of sepsis

This is a guideline for the management of sepsis, developed by the Sepsis Registry Committee of The Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine (JSICM) launched in March 2007. This guideline was developed on the basis of evidence-based medicine and focuses on unique treatments in Japan that have not been included in the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines (SSCG), as well as treatments that are viewed differently in Japan and in Western countries. Although the methods in this guideline conform to the 2008 SSCG, the Japanese literature and the results of the Sepsis Registry Survey, which was performed twice by the Sepsis Registry Committee in intensive care units (ICUs) registered with JSICM, are also referred. This is the first and original guideline for sepsis in Japan and is expected to be properly used in daily clinical practice.

This article is translated from Japanese, originally published as “The Japanese Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis” in the Journal of the Japanese Society of Intensive Care Medicine (J Jpn Soc Intensive Care Med), 2013; 20:124–73. The original work is at http://dx.doi.org/10.3918/jsicm.20.124.

High-volume hemofiltration in children with acute liver failure*

OBJECTIVES

High-volume hemofiltration has shown beneficial effects in severe sepsis and multiple organ failure, improving hemodynamics and fluid balance. Recent studies suggest that acute liver failure shares many pathophysiologic similarities with sepsis. Therefore, we assessed the systemic effects of high-volume hemofiltration in children with acute liver failure.

DESIGN

Retrospective observational cohort study.

PATIENTS

Twenty-two children.

SETTING

Forty-two-bed multidisciplinary pediatric and neonatal ICUs in a tertiary university hospital.

INTERVENTION

We evaluated high-volume hemofiltration therapy as part of standard management of 22 children admitted in our unit for acute liver failure. Fifteen patients had fulminant hepatic failure, three had acute-on-chronic liver disease, and four had primary nonfunction. High-volume hemofiltration was initiated in patients requiring emergency liver transplantation and when hepatic encephalopathy grade higher than 2 and/or hemodynamic instability requiring vasopressors occurred. High-volume hemofiltration was defined by a flow of ultrafiltrate of more than 80 mL/kg/hr. Clinical and biological variables were assessed before and 24 and 48 hours after initiation of high-volume hemofiltration therapy.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

High-volume hemofiltration was initiated with a median grade III of hepatic encephalopathy. The median flow of ultrafiltrate was 119 mL/kg/hr (range, 80-384). After 24 hours of high-volume hemofiltration treatment, we observed an increase in mean arterial pressure (p = 0.0002) and a decrease in serum creatinine (p = 0.0002). In half of the patients, the encephalopathy grade decreased. After 48 hours of treatment, mean arterial pressure (p = 0.0005), grade of hepatic encephalopathy (p = 0.04), and serum creatinine (p = 0.0002) improved. Overall mortality was 45.4% (n = 10). Emergency liver transplantation was performed in eight children. Five patients spontaneously recovered liver function.

CONCLUSIONS

High-volume hemofiltration therapy significantly improves hemodynamic stability and neurological status in children with acute liver failure awaiting for emergency liver transplantation.

How outcomes are defined in clinical trials of mechanically ventilated adults and children

Systematic reviews have considerable potential to provide evidence-based data to aid clinical decision-making. However, there is growing recognition that trials involving mechanical ventilation lack consistency in the definition and measurement of ventilation outcomes, creating difficulties in combining data for meta-analyses. To address the inconsistency in outcome definitions, international standards for trial registration and clinical trial protocols published recommendations, effectively setting the "gold standard" for reporting trial outcomes. In this Critical Care Perspective, we review the problems resulting from inconsistent outcome definitions and inconsistent reporting of outcomes (outcome sets). We present data highlighting the variability of the most commonly reported ventilation outcome definitions. Ventilation outcomes reported in trials over the last 6 years typically fall into four domains: measures of ventilator dependence; adverse outcomes; mortality; and resource use. We highlight the need, first, for agreement on outcome definitions and, second, for a minimum core outcome set for trials involving mechanical ventilation. A minimum core outcome set would not restrict trialists from measuring additional outcomes, but would overcome problems of variability in outcome selection, measurement, and reporting, thereby enhancing comparisons across trials.

High-volume hemofiltration for septic acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

High-volume hemofiltration (HVHF) is an attractive therapy for the treatment of septic acute kidney injury (AKI). Small experimental and uncontrolled studies have suggested hemodynamic and survival benefits at higher doses of HVHF than those used for the high-intensity arms of the RENAL and ATN studies. Our aim was to evaluate the effects of high-volume hemofiltration (HVHF) compared with standard-volume hemofiltration (SVHF) for septic AKI.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis of publications between 1966 and 2013 was performed. The review was limited to randomized-controlled trials that compared HVHF (effluent rate greater than 50 ml/kg per hour) versus SVHF in the treatment of sepsis and septic shock. The primary outcome assessed was 28-day mortality. Other outcomes assessed were recovery of kidney function, lengths of ICU and hospital stays, vasopressor dose reduction, and adverse events.

Results

Four trials, including 470 total participants, were included. Pooled analysis for 28-day mortality did not show any meaningful difference between HVHF compared with SVHF (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.29). No included studies reported statistically significant differences between groups for any of the secondary outcomes. Adverse events, including hypophosphatemia and hypokalemia, were more commonly observed in HVHF-treated patients, although reporting was inconsistent across studies.

Conclusions

Insufficient evidence exists of a therapeutic benefit for routine use of HVHF for septic AKI, other than on an experimental basis. Given the logistic challenges related to patient recruitment along with an incomplete understanding of the biologic mechanisms by which HVHF may modify outcomes, further trials should focus on alternative extracorporeal therapies as an adjuvant therapy for septic AKI rather than HVHF.

Blood purification and mortality in sepsis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

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.

Re-evaluating currently available data and suggestions for planning randomised controlled studies regarding the use of hydroxyethyl starch in critically ill patients - a multidisciplinary statement

INTRODUCTION

Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) is a commonly used colloid in critically ill patients. However, its safety has been questioned in recent studies and meta-analyses.

METHODS

We re-evaluated prospective randomised controlled trials (RCT) from four meta-analyses published in 2013 that compared the effect of HES with crystalloids in critically ill patients, focusing on the adherence to 'presumably correct indication'. Regarding the definition of 'presumably correct indication', studies were checked for the following six criteria (maximum six points): short time interval from shock to randomisation (<6 h), restricted use for initial volume resuscitation, use of any consistent algorithm for haemodynamic stabilisation, reproducible indicators of hypovolaemia, maximum dose of HES, and exclusion of patients with pre-existing renal failure or renal replacement therapy.

RESULTS

Duration of fluid administration ranged from 90 min up to a maximum of 90 days. Four studies considered follow-up until 90-day mortality, three studies 28-/30-day mortality, whereas four studies reported only early mortality. Included studies showed a large heterogeneity of the indication score ranging between 1 and 4 points with a median (25%; 75% quartile) of 4 (2; 4).

CONCLUSIONS

The most important question, whether or not HES may be harmful when it is limited to immediate haemodynamic stabilisation, cannot be answered yet in the absence of any study sufficiently addressing this question. In order to overcome the limitations of most of the previous studies, we now suggest an algorithm emphasising the strict indication of HES. Additionally, we give a list of suggestions that should be adequately considered in any prospective RCT in the field of acute volume resuscitation in critically ill patients.