Extracorporeal blood purification in burns: A review

CytoSorb® in burn patients with septic shock and Acute Kidney Injury on Continuous Kidney Replacement Therapy is associated with improved clinical outcome and survival

BACKGROUND

In burn patients, septic shock and acute kidney injury (AKI) with use of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) severely increase morbidity and mortality. Sorbent therapies could be an adjunctive therapy to address the underlying metabolic changes in inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines dysregulated production.

METHODS

A retrospectively observational study of 35 severe burn patients admitted to the Burn Center (Turin, Italy, from January 2017 to December 2022), who underwent CRRT for AKI-associated septic shock. Out of 35 patients, 11 were treated with CytoSorb® as adjunctive therapy to CRRT (Sorbent group) and 24 patients only with CRRT (Control group).

RESULTS

The application of CytoSorb® took place in a very dispersed way. Out of 11 patients, 7 started the CRRT together with the sorbent application. The patients of the sorbent group exhibited a significant reduction in norepinephrine use compared to that of the control group. A clinical improvement over the first 4 days of Cytosorb® was observed in both survivors and no survivors of the sorbent group, with significant norepinephrine decreased use on day 4 compared to day 1. In-hospital mortality was 45.4% and 70.8% in the sorbent and control group, respectively, and significantly better at Kaplan-Meier survival analysis at 270 days (p = 0.0445). In both groups, all survivor patients recovered renal function at discharge, whereas no survivors did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive treatment with CytoSorb® for burn patients with AKI-CRRT and septic shock poorly responsive to standard therapy led to a significant clinical improvement, and was associated with a lower mortality rate compared to CRRT alone.

American Burn Association Clinical Practice Guidelines on Burn Shock Resuscitation

This Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) addresses the topic of acute fluid resuscitation during the first 48 hours following a burn injury for adults with burns ≥20% of the total body surface area (%TBSA). The listed authors formed an investigation panel and developed clinically relevant PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome) questions. A systematic literature search returned 5978 titles related to this topic and after 3 levels of screening, 24 studies met criteria to address the PICO questions and were critically reviewed. We recommend that clinicians consider the use of human albumin solution, especially in patients with larger burns, to lower resuscitation volumes and improve urine output. We recommend initiating resuscitation based on providing 2 mL/kg/% TBSA burn in order to reduce resuscitation fluid volumes. We recommend selective monitoring of intra-abdominal and intraocular pressure during burn shock resuscitation. We make a weak recommendation for clinicians to consider the use of computer decision support software to guide fluid titration and lower resuscitation fluid volumes. We do not recommend the use of transpulmonary thermodilution-derived variables to guide burn shock resuscitation. We are unable to make any recommendations on the use of high-dose vitamin C (ascorbic acid), fresh frozen plasma (FFP), early continuous renal replacement therapy, or vasopressors as adjuncts during acute burn shock resuscitation. Mortality is an important outcome in burn shock resuscitation, but it was not formally included as a PICO outcome because the available scientific literature is missing studies of sufficient population size and quality to allow us to confidently make recommendations related to the outcome of survival at this time.

Acute kidney injury in patients with burns

Burn injury is associated with a high risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) with a prevalence of AKI among patients with burns of 9-50%. Despite an improvement in burn injury survival in the past decade, AKI in patients with burns is associated with an extremely poor short-term and long-term prognosis, with a mortality of >80% among those with severe AKI. Factors that contribute to the development of AKI in patients with burns include haemodynamic alterations, burn-induced systemic inflammation and apoptosis, haemolysis, rhabdomyolysis, smoke inhalation injury, drug nephrotoxicity and sepsis. Early and late AKI after burn injury differ in their aetiologies and outcomes. Sepsis is the main driver of late AKI in patients with burns and late AKI has been associated with higher mortality than early AKI. Prevention of early AKI involves correction of hypovolaemia and avoidance of nephrotoxic drugs (for example, hydroxocobalamin), whereas prevention of late AKI involves prevention and early recognition of sepsis as well as avoidance of nephrotoxins. Treatment of AKI in patients with burns remains supportive, including prevention of fluid overload, treatment of electrolyte disturbance and use of kidney replacement therapy when indicated.

Research priorities for therapeutic plasma exchange in critically ill patients

Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) is a therapeutic intervention that separates plasma from blood cells to remove pathological factors or to replenish deficient factors. The use of TPE is increasing over the last decades. However, despite a good theoretical rationale and biological plausibility for TPE as a therapy for numerous diseases or syndromes associated with critical illness, TPE in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting has not been studied extensively. A group of eighteen experts around the globe from different clinical backgrounds used a modified Delphi method to phrase key research questions related to "TPE in the critically ill patient". These questions focused on: (1) the pathophysiological role of the removal and replacement process, (2) optimal timing of treatment, (3) dosing and treatment regimes, (4) risk-benefit assumptions and (5) novel indications in need of exploration. For all five topics, the current understanding as well as gaps in knowledge and future directions were assessed. The content should stimulate future research in the field and novel clinical applications.

Burn Shock and Resuscitation: Review and State of the Science

Burn shock and acute fluid resuscitation continue to spark intense interest and debate among burn clinicians. Following a major burn injury, fluid resuscitation of burn shock is life-saving, but paradoxically can also be a source of increased morbidity and mortality because of the unintended consequence of systemic edema formation. Considerable research over the past two decades has been devoted to understanding the mechanisms of edema formation, and to develop strategies to curb resuscitation fluids and limit edema development. Recognition of burn endotheliopathy - injury to the endothelium's glycocalyx layer- is one of the most important recent developments in our understanding of burn shock pathophysiology. Newer monitoring approaches and resuscitation endpoints, along with alternative resuscitation strategies to crystalloids alone, such as administration of albumin, or plasma, or high dose ascorbic acid, have had mixed results in limiting fluid creep. Clear demonstration of improvements in outcomes with all of these approaches remains elusive. This comprehensive review article on burn shock and acute resuscitation accompanies the American Burn Association's State of the Science meeting held in New Orleans, LA on November 2-3, 2021 and the Proceedings of that conference published in this journal.

Efficacy and safety of blood purification in the treatment of deep burns: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

This meta-analysis aimed to systematically review and evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies examining the efficacy and safety of blood purification in the treatment of patients with deep burns.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases and relevant references were systematically searched for RCTs and cohort studies published until the end of September 2020 to investigate the potential of blood purification in improving the prognosis of severely burned patients. The primary outcome of this systematic review was overall patient mortality; secondary outcomes included the incidence of sepsis and infection prevention (vital signs and routine blood tests).

RESULTS

A total of 6 RCTs and 1 cohort study were included, with a total of 538 burn patients (274 patients who received blood purification and 264 control patients). Compared with patients who received conventional treatment, those treated with blood purification displayed significant 2-day reduction in mortality and sepsis with relative risks of 0.62 and 0.41, respectively (95% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.74-0.82 and 0.25-0.67, respectively; P < .05). In terms of vital signs and blood biochemistry, the respiratory rates and blood urea nitrogen levels of patients in the blood purification group 3 days post-treatment were significantly higher than those in the control group (randomized standard deviations (SMDs), 0.78 and 0.77, respectively; 95% CIs, 0.33-1.23 and 1.22-0.31, respectively; P < .05). However, there were no significant differences between groups on day 3 with regard to temperature (P = .32), heart rate (P = .26), white blood cell count (P = .54), or neutrophil count (P = .74), potentially owing to the small sample size or the relatively short intervention time. Heterogeneous differences existed between the groups with respect to blood urea nitrogen (SMD = -1.22; 95% CI, -2.16 to -0.40; P < .00001) and Cr (SMD = -3.13; 95% CI, -4.92 to -1.33; P < .00001) on day 7. No systematic adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Blood purification treatment for deep burn patients can significantly reduce the mortality rate and the incidence of complications.

Coupled-plasma filtration and adsorption for severe burn patients with septic shock and acute kidney injury treated with renal replacement therapy

BACKGROUND

Coupled-plasma filtration adsorption (CPFA) is a sorbent-based technology aimed at removing soluble mediators of septic shock. We present our experience on the use of CPFA in septic shock severe burn patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) needing renal replacement therapy (RRT) with the main goal to evaluate efficacy and safety of CPFA in this specific subset of septic shock patients.

METHODS

In this observational study, we retrospectively reviewed the medical notes of all burn patients admitted to our adult Burn Center who received CPFA, as part of the septic shock treatment requiring RRT, between January 2001 and December 2017 (CPFA group). We compared CPFA group with all the burn patients admitted to our Center in the same period of time, with the same range of relevant clinical characteristics, who developed AKI and were treated with RRT, but not CPFA (control group). We collected demographic characteristics, burn size, Sequential Organ Assessment Failure (SOFA) score, microbiological data, and patient outcome, in terms of in-hospital mortality rate and the probability of survival calculated using the revised Baux score. We also collected data regarding CPFA safety (hemorrhagic episodes, catheter associated-complications, hypersensitivity reactions) and efficiency (number and duration of CPFA sessions, plasma treated amount, plasma processed dose).

RESULTS

39 severe burn patients were treated with CPFA (CPFA group) (mean age 46.0 years, range 40.0-56.0 years; mean burn size 48.0% TBSA, range 35.0-60.0% TBSA), and 87 patients treated with RRT, but not CPFA, who had similar clinical characteristics (control group). Observed mortality rate was 51.3% in the CPFA group and 77.1% in the control group (p 0.004). Regarding factors affecting survival in the CPFA group, SOFA score on the 1st day of CPFA resulted significant (OR 2.016, 95% CI, 1.221-3.326; p < 0.004) in the multivariate analysis logistic model.

CONCLUSIONS

CPFA treatment for burn patients with AKI-RRT and septic shock, sustained by bacterial strains non or poorly responsive to therapy, was associated with a lower mortality rate, compared to RRT alone. However, further research, such as large prospective studies, is required to clarify the role of CPFA in the treatment of burns with septic shock and AKI-RRT.

Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice - Evidence-Based Approach from the Writing Committee of the American Society for Apheresis: The Eighth Special Issue

The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Journal of Clinical Apheresis (JCA) Special Issue Writing Committee is charged with reviewing, updating and categorizing indications for the evidence-based use of therapeutic apheresis (TA) in human disease. Since the 2007 JCA Special Issue (Fourth Edition), the committee has incorporated systematic review and evidence-based approaches in the grading and categorization of apheresis indications. This Eighth Edition of the JCA Special Issue continues to maintain this methodology and rigor in order to make recommendations on the use of apheresis in a wide variety of diseases/conditions. The JCA Eighth Edition, like its predecessor, continues to apply the category and grading system definitions in fact sheets. The general layout and concept of a fact sheet that was introduced in the Fourth Edition, has largely been maintained in this edition. Each fact sheet succinctly summarizes the evidence for the use of TA in a specific disease entity or medical condition. The Eighth Edition comprises 84 fact sheets for relevant diseases and medical conditions, with 157 graded and categorized indications and/or TA modalities. The Eighth Edition of the JCA Special Issue seeks to continue to serve as a key resource that guides the utilization of TA in the treatment of human disease.

Early application of continuous high-volume haemofiltration can reduce sepsis and improve the prognosis of patients with severe burns

Background

In the early stage of severe burn, patients often exhibit a high level of inflammatory mediators in blood and are likely to develop sepsis. High-volume haemofiltration (HVHF) can eliminate these inflammatory mediators. We hypothesised that early application of HVHF may be beneficial in reducing sepsis and improving the prognosis of patients with severe burns.

Methods

Adults patients with burns ≥ 50% total burn surface area (TBSA) and in whom the sum of deep partial and full-thickness burn areas was ≥ 30% were enrolled in this randomised prospective study, and they were divided into control (41 cases) and HVHF (41 cases) groups. Patients in the control group received standard management for major burns, whereas the HVHF group additionally received HVHF treatment (65 ml/kg/h for 3 consecutive days) within 3 days after burn. The incidence of sepsis and mortality, some laboratory data, levels of inflammatory cytokines in the blood, HLA-DR expression on CD14⁺ peripheral blood monocytes, the proportion of CD25⁺Foxp3⁺ in CD4⁺ T lymphocytes, and the counts of CD3⁺, CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T lymphocytes were recorded within 28 days post-burn.

Results

The incidence of sepsis, septic shock and duration of vasopressor treatment were decreased significantly in the HVHF group. In addition, in the subgroup of patients with burns ≥ 80% TBSA, the 90-day mortality showed significant decreases in the HVHF group. The ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to the fraction of inspiration oxygen was improved after HVHF treatment. In the patients who received HVHF treatment, the blood levels of inflammatory cytokines, including tumour necrosis factor-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6 and IL-8, as well as the blood level of procalcitonin were found to be lower than in the control group. Moreover, higher HLA-DR expression on CD14⁺ monocytes and a lower proportion of CD25⁺Foxp3⁺ in CD4⁺ T lymphocytes were observed in the patients in the HVHF group.

Conclusions

Early application of HVHF benefits patients with severe burns, especially for those with a greater burn area (≥ 80% TBSA), decreasing the incidence of sepsis and mortality. This effect may be attributed to its early clearance of inflammatory mediators and the recovery of the patient’s immune status.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Register, ChiCTR-TRC-12002616. Registered on 24 October 2012.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2095-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.