Potential survival benefit and early recovery from organ dysfunction with polymyxin B hemoperfusion: perspectives from a real-world big data analysis and the supporting mechanisms of action

Outcomes of extracorporeal blood purification with oXiris® membrane in critically ill patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of the novel oXiris® membrane in critically ill adult patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from inception to 01/06/2023 for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of intervention (NRSI). The primary outcome was overall mortality. Random effect meta-analyses were conducted in RevMan 5.4.1. Study quality was evaluated using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. (PROSPERO: CRD42023389198).

RESULTS

Ten studies (2 RCTs and 8 NRSIs) with 481 patients were included. None had low risk of bias. Treatment using oXiris® was associated with reduced overall mortality (RR 0.78, 95%CI 0.62-0.98; p = 0.03; 6 NRSI). One RCT reported 28-day mortality, finding no significant difference between groups. Besides, pooled NRSIs results showed significant reductions in SOFA scores, norepinephrine dosage, and several inflammatory biomarkers (C-reactive protein [CRP], lactate, and interleukin-6 [IL-6]) post oXiris® treatment. However, other clinical outcomes (ICU and hospital length of stay, mechanical ventilation duration) were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

In critically ill patients, the use of oXiris® membrane was associated with reduced overall mortality, norepinephrine dosage, CRP, IL-6, lactate levels, along with improved organ function. However, the certainty of evidence was very low, necessitating high-quality RCTs to further evaluate its efficacy in this population.

Current perspectives in the management of sepsis and septic shock

Within patients with sepsis, there exists significant heterogeneity, and while all patients should receive conventional therapy, there are subgroups of patients who may benefit from specific therapies, often referred to as rescue therapies. Therefore, the identification of these specific patient subgroups is crucial and lays the groundwork for the application of precision medicine based on the development of targeted interventions. Over the years, efforts have been made to categorize sepsis into different subtypes based on clinical characteristics, biomarkers, or underlying mechanisms. For example, sepsis can be stratified into different phenotypes based on the predominant dysregulated host response. These phenotypes can range from hyperinflammatory states to immunosuppressive states and even mixed phenotypes. Each phenotype may require different therapeutic approaches to improve patient outcomes. Rescue strategies for septic shock may encompass various interventions, such as immunomodulatory therapies, extracorporeal support (e.g., ECMO), or therapies targeted at specific molecular or cellular pathways involved in the pathophysiology of sepsis. In recent years, there has been growing interest in precision medicine approaches to sepsis and phenotype identification. Precision medicine aims to tailor treatments to each individual patient based on their unique characteristics and disease mechanisms.

Catastrophic Streptococcus pyogenes Disease: A Personalized Approach Based on Phenotypes and Treatable Traits

Streptococcal toxic shock syndrome (STTS) is a critical medical emergency marked by high morbidity and mortality, necessitating swift awareness, targeted treatment, and early source control due to its rapid symptom manifestation. This report focuses on a cohort of 13 patients admitted to Vall d'Hebron University Hospital Intensive Care Unit, Barcelona, from November 2022 to March 2023, exhibiting invasive Streptococcus pyogenes infections and meeting institutional sepsis code activation criteria. The primary infections were community-acquired pneumonia (61.5%) and skin/soft tissue infection (30.8%). All patients received prompt antibiotic treatment, with clinical source control through thoracic drainage (30.8%) or surgical means (23.1%). Organ support involved invasive mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, and continuous renal replacement therapy as per guidelines. Of note, 76.9% of patients experienced septic cardiomyopathy, and 53.8% required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The study identified three distinct phenotypic profiles-hyperinflammatory, low perfusion, and hypogammaglobulinemic-which could guide personalized therapeutic approaches. STTS, with a mean SOFA score of 17 (5.7) and a 53.8% requiring ECMO, underscores the need for precision medicine-based rescue therapies and sepsis phenotype identification. Integrating these strategies with prompt antibiotics and efficient source control offers a potential avenue to mitigate organ failure, enhancing patient survival and recovery in the face of this severe clinical condition.

Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies

Sepsis and septic shock are associated with high mortality, with diagnosis and treatment remaining a challenge for clinicians. Their management classically encompasses hemodynamic resuscitation, antibiotic treatment, life support, and focus control; however, there are aspects that have changed. This narrative review highlights current and avant-garde methods of handling patients experiencing septic shock based on the experience of its authors and the best available evidence in a context of uncertainty. Following the first recommendation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, it is recommended that specific sepsis care performance improvement programs are implemented in hospitals, i.e., "Sepsis Code" programs, designed ad hoc, to achieve this goal. Regarding hemodynamics, the importance of perfusion and hemodynamic coherence stand out, which allow for the recognition of different phenotypes, determination of the ideal time for commencing vasopressor treatment, and the appropriate fluid therapy dosage. At present, this is not only important for the initial timing, but also for de-resuscitation, which involves the early weaning of support therapies, directed elimination of fluids, and fluid tolerance concept. Finally, regarding blood purification therapies, those aimed at eliminating endotoxins and cytokines are attractive in the early management of patients in septic shock.

Endotoxic Septic Shock: Diagnosis and Treatment

Endotoxin, also referred to as lipopolysaccharide (LPS), is a potent stimulator of the inflammatory cascade which may progress to sepsis and septic shock. The term endotoxic septic shock has been used for patients who have a clinical phenotype that is characterized by high endotoxin activity in addition to a high burden of organ failure; especially a pattern of organ failure including hepatic dysfunction, acute kidney injury, and various forms of endothelial dysfunction. Endotoxic septic shock has been a target for drug therapy for decades with no success. A likely barrier to their success was the inability to quantify endotoxin in the bloodstream. The Endotoxin Activity Assay (EAA) is positioned to change this landscape. In addition, medical devices using adsorptive technology in an extra-corporeal circulation has been shown to remove large quantities of endotoxin from the bloodstream. Focusing on the use of EAA to determine high concentrations of endotoxin will allow patients with endotoxic septic shock to be identified quickly and these patients may benefit most from removal of endotoxin using extracorporeal methods.

Endotoxin removal therapy with Polymyxin B immobilized fiber column: a single center experience from EUPHAS2 registry

Although the precise clinical indication for initiation of PMX-HA is widely debated in the literature, a proper patient selection and timing of treatment delivery might play a critical role in the clinical course of a specific subphenotype of septic shock (endotoxic shock). In light of this view, since 2019, we have introduced in our clinical practice a diagnostic-therapeutic flowchart to select patients that can benefit the most from the treatment proposed. In addition, we reported in this study our experience of PMX-HA in a cohort of critically ill patients admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU). We analyzed a single centre, retrospective, observational web-based database (extracted from the EUPHAS2 registry) of critically ill patients admitted to the ICU between January 2016 and May 2021 who were affected by endotoxic shock. Patients were divided according to the diagnostic-therapeutic flowchart in two groups: Pre-Flowchart (Pre-F) and Post-Flowchart (Post-F). From January 2016 to May 2021, 61 patients were treated with PMX-HA out of 531 patients diagnosed with septic shock and of these, fifty patients (82%) developed AKI during their ICU stay. The most common source of infection was secondary peritonitis (36%), followed by community-acquired pneumonia (29%). Fifty-five (90%) out of 61 patients received a second PMX-HA treatment, with a statistically significant difference between the two groups (78% of the Pre-F vs. 100% of the Post-F group, p = 0.005). In both groups, between T0 and T120, the Endotoxin Activity Assay (EAA) decreased, while the SOFA score, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and Vasoactive Inotropic Score (VIS) improved with no statistically significant difference. Furthermore, when performing a propensity score matching analysis to compare mortality between the two groups, statistically significant lower ICU and 90-day mortalities were observed in the Post-F group [p = 0.016]. Although in this experienced centre data registry, PMX-HA was associated with organ function recovery, hemodynamic improvement, and current EAA level reduction in critically ill patients with endotoxic shock. Following propensity score-matched analysis, ICU mortality and 90-day mortalities were lower in the diagnostic-therapeutic flowchart group when considering two temporal groups based on strict patient selection criteria and timing to achieve PMX. Further Randomised Control Trials focused on centre selection, adequate training and a flowchart of action when assessing extracorporeal blood purification use should be performed.