In vivo antibiotic removal during coupled plasma filtration adsorption: a retrospective study

Hemodiafiltration with endogenous reinfusion of the regenerated ultrafiltrate (HFR): towards a convective, diffusive, and adsorptive dialysis

Hemodiafiltration with endogenous reinfusion of the ultrafiltrate (HFR) is a dialysis technique characterized by a resin cartridge with adsorptive properties that combines the mechanisms of diffusion, convection, and adsorption in a single therapeutic regimen. After nearly 20 years of clinical experience with HFR, this article reviews the accumulated evidence with this technique, considering whether adsorption reduction, as a third purification mechanism, should be the next step in the treatment of hemodialysis patients. HFR, beyond producing an extensive removal of uremic toxins, has demonstrated to reduce the loss of nutrients and other physiological components during the dialysis session as compared to online hemodiafiltration, ameliorating the inflammatory state and oxidative stress in this population. In addition to its ease of use, the technique is also highly biocompatible and can be used in patients with a compromised vascular access. Based on these observations, HFR appears to be an especially useful therapy for high-comorbidity patients, including those with frailty, malnutrition, or cardiovascular disease. In this review, we, as a consensus panel of nephrologists experienced with HFR, survey existing literature and summarize our views on when to use this technique, which patients may be best suited for HFR, and how to effectively prescribe and monitor this modality of dialysis in daily clinical practice.

Antimicrobial Exposure in Critically Ill Patients with Sepsis-Associated Multi-Organ Dysfunction Requiring Extracorporeal Organ Support: A Narrative Review

Sepsis is a leading cause of disability and mortality worldwide. The pathophysiology of sepsis relies on the maladaptive host response to pathogens that fosters unbalanced organ crosstalk and induces multi-organ dysfunction, whose severity was directly associated with mortality. In septic patients, etiologic interventions aiming to reduce the pathogen load via appropriate antimicrobial therapy and the effective control of the source infection were demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes. Nonetheless, extracorporeal organ support represents a complementary intervention that may play a role in mitigating life-threatening complications caused by sepsis-associated multi-organ dysfunction. In this setting, an increasing amount of research raised concerns about the risk of suboptimal antimicrobial exposure in critically ill patients with sepsis, which may be worsened by the concomitant delivery of extracorporeal organ support. Accordingly, several strategies have been implemented to overcome this issue. In this narrative review, we discussed the pharmacokinetic features of antimicrobials and mechanisms that may favor drug removal during renal replacement therapy, coupled plasma filtration and absorption, therapeutic plasma exchange, hemoperfusion, extracorporeal CO₂ removal and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. We also provided an overview of evidence-based strategies that may help the physician to safely prescribe effective antimicrobial doses in critically ill patients with sepsis-associated multi-organ dysfunction who receive extracorporeal organ support.

Adverse outcomes with extracorporeal adsorbent blood treatments in toxic systemic inflammation: a perspective on possible mechanisms

Background

Extracorporeal blood purification (EBP) treatments may be used in patients with sepsis and related conditions to mitigate toxic systemic inflammation, prevent or reverse vital organ injury, and improve outcome. These treatments lack demonstrable efficacy, but are generally considered safe. However, since late 2020, four clinical studies of EBP treatment using adsorbent devices in inflammatory disease reported significantly increased patient mortality associated with the adsorbent treatments. Criticisms of study design and execution were published, but revealed no decisive flaws. None of these critiques considered possible toxic effects of the adsorbent treatments per se.

Perspective and conclusion

In adsorbent EBP treatment of systemic inflammatory disease the adsorbent media are deployed in patient blood or plasma flow for the purpose of broad spectrum, non-specific adsorptive removal of inflammatory mediators. Adsorption and sequestration of inflammatory mediators by adsorbent media is intended to reduce mediator concentrations in circulating blood and neutralize their activity. However, in the past two decades developments in both biomedical engineering and the science of cytokine molecular dynamics suggest that immobilization of inflammatory proteins on solid scaffolds or molecular carriers may stabilize protein structure and preserve or amplify protein function. It is unknown if these mechanisms are operative in EBP adsorbent treatments. If these mechanisms are operative, then the adsorbent medium could become reactive, promoting inflammatory activity which could result in negative outcomes. Considering the recent reports of harm with adsorbent treatments in diverse inflammatory conditions, caution urges investigation of these potentially harmful mechanisms in these devices. Candidate mechanisms for possible inquiry are discussed.

Coupled plasma filtration adsorption for the treatment of sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effect of coupled plasma filtration adsorption (CPFA) for the treatment of sepsis or septic shock is controversial. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of CPFA on all-cause mortality in patients with sepsis or septic shock.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from inception to the 1st of May 2022. We included studies involving patients (˃ 14 years) with sepsis or septic shock. All authors reported our primary outcome of all-cause mortality (hospital mortality, 28-day mortality or 30-day mortality). Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) with accompanying 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Six studies including 537 patients were included. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis showed that the all-cause mortality was about 54.2% (119/243 in the CPFA group and 172/294 in the control group). There was no statistically significant difference in the all-cause mortality between two groups (odds ratio [OR] = 0.75; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.06; P = 0.11; Chi² = 14.04; I² = 64%).

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of CPFA failed to decrease all-cause mortality of sepsis or septic shock patients. Further large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the ability of this therapy to improve clinical outcomes are still required to confirm these 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.