Une série de réactions indésirables associées à l’utilisation concomitante d’une membrane AN69-ST et d’un IECA

Application of Adsorptive Blood Purification Techniques during Cardiopulmonary Bypass in Cardiac Surgery

By reason of surgical demand, the majority of cardiovascular procedures still depend on the use of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Due to the nonphysiological state of CPB, it can cause complex and unpredictable inflammatory response, which may lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Unfortunately, the pharmacological and mechanical strategies that currently exist do not offer significant advantages in controlling inflammatory response and improving patient outcomes. The best strategy to reduce inflammation in CPB is still uncertain. In recent years, adsorptive blood purification techniques (BPTs) have emerged, among which CytoSorb is the latest representative device. Currently, the primary application area of adsorptive BPTs is in the control and treatment of systemic hyperinflammatory states, such as refractory septic shock patients. However, the evidences on efficacy and safety of adsorptive BPTs application during CPB surgery are still inconclusive, so we summarize the relevant evidences here and suggest future potential research areas.

Dialyzer Performance During Hemodialysis Without Systemic Anticoagulation Using a Heparin-Grafted Dialyzer Combined With a Citrate-Enriched Dialysate: Results of the Randomized Crossover Noninferiority EvoCit Study

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

The EvoCit study was designed to evaluate performance of a heparin-grafted dialyzer during hemodialysis with and without systemic anticoagulation.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized, crossover, noninferiority trial. Noninferiority was defined as a difference of≤10% for the primary outcome.

SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

Single hemodialysis center; 26 prevalent patients treated with 617 hemodialysis sessions.

INTERVENTIONS

Hemodialysis using a heparin-grafted dialyzer combined with a 1.0mmol/L citrate-enriched dialysate ("EvoCit") without systemic anticoagulation compared with hemodialysis performed with a heparin-grafted dialyzer with systemic heparin ("EvoHep"). Patients were randomly allocated to a first period of 4 weeks and crossed over to the alternative strategy for a second period of 4 weeks.

OUTCOMES

The primary end point was the difference in Kt/V_urea between EvoCit and EvoHep. Secondary end points were urea reduction ratio, middle molecule removal, treatment time, thrombin generation, and reduction in dialyzer blood compartment volume.

RESULTS

The estimated difference in Kt/V_urea between EvoCit and EvoHep was-0.03 (95% CI, -0.06 to-0.007), establishing noninferiority with mean Kt/V_urea of 1.47±0.05 (SE) for EvoCit and 1.50±0.05 for EvoHep. Noninferiority was also established for reduction ratios of urea and β₂-microglobulin. Premature discontinuation of dialysis was required for 4.2% of sessions among 6 patients during EvoCit and no sessions during EvoHep. Effective treatment time was 236±5 minutes for EvoCit and 238±1 minutes for EvoHep. Thrombin generation was increased and there was greater reduction in dialyzer blood compartment volume after treatments with EvoCit compared with EvoHep.

LIMITATIONS

The effects of avoiding systemic anticoagulation on clinical outcomes were not evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

EvoCit is noninferior to EvoHep with respect to solute clearance but results in a greater number of shortened treatments, more membrane clotting, and greater thrombin generation TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT03887468.