Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37707564›Full record

ReviewDie Anaesthesiologie2023

[Hemoperfusion in anesthesia and intensive care medicine: benefits, risks, and evidence for different systems].

Caroline Gräfe, Lorenz Weidhase, Uwe Liebchen, Markus A Weigand, Christina Scharf

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Review
  3. [Adsorbers and their evidence].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Caroline GräfeKlinik für Anaesthesiologie, LMU Klinikum München, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland.
Lorenz WeidhaseInterdisziplinäre internistische Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig, Leipzig, Deutschland.
Uwe LiebchenKlinik für Anaesthesiologie, LMU Klinikum München, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland.
Markus A WeigandKlinik für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland.
Christina ScharfKlinik für Anaesthesiologie, LMU Klinikum München, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, München, Deutschland. christina.scharf@med.uni-muenchen.de.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEHeidelberg University · DELMU Klinikum · DEUniversity Hospital Leipzig · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHemoperfusion is a technique for the extracorporeal elimination of endogenous and exogenous toxins and harmful mediators by adsorption. It can be used as a stand-alone device, as part of a heart-lung machine or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) or, as is currently the case, integrated into a kidney replacement procedure. In the meantime, various suppliers offer devices with different technologies.

objectiveThe aim of this work was to evaluate the benefits, risks and evidence of the different systems, how they work and for which indications they are approved in Germany.

methodTo achieve this goal, a narrative assessment of the existing literature and guidelines for different indications was performed. The focus was on in vivo studies.

resultsIn principle, a distinction must be made in adsorption techniques between pure adsorption and the combination as adsorption and kidney replacement therapy. The adsorbers available in Germany include Cytosorb®, HA-330, Seraph®-100 and Toraymyxin. Combined procedures (adsorption and kidney replacement) are offered with coupled plasma filtration and adsorption (CPFA) and oXiris®. Most adsorbers have been developed for cytokine and endotoxin removal in patients with sepsis; however, to date, no randomized controlled trial (RCT) has demonstrated a survival benefit when using hemoperfusion. Therefore, the S3 guidelines for treatment of sepsis and the surviving sepsis campaign guidelines advise against its routine use. When the corona pandemic began, hemoperfusion was considered as a promising therapeutic approach. Cytosorb®, Seraph®-100, and oXiris® received emergency approval by the FDA to be used in critically ill patients with COVID-19, so questions arose about the appropriateness and importance of its use; however, the data generated did not show positive results, so its use cannot be recommended routinely either. In addition, they are not mentioned as a treatment option in the current guidelines. The use of adsorption procedures in patients with liver failure and rhabdomyolysis has only been rudimentarily studied, so any evidence is currently lacking. The only adsorber that has CE approval in Germany for both applications is Cytosorb®. In the next few years, studies will have to follow that investigate the efficacy and thus either justify or refute the use in clinical routine. Hemoperfusion procedures are used in the heart-lung machine as part of cardiac surgery for either cytokine or anticoagulant adsorption. No congruent data are available to support the use for the elimination of cytokines. If emergency cardiac surgery is required in a patient with pre-existing anticoagulation, hemoperfusion procedures can be used to prevent bleeding complications. Cytosorb® has CE approval for this indication. All available techniques are nonselective adsorption processes, so that adsorption of known and unknown substances can occur. Unintentional adsorption of drugs, such as various anti-infective agents is a relevant risk, especially when used in patients with sepsis. DISCUSSION: Various adsorption systems can eliminate different known and unknown substances. Currently, there is a lack of evidence for all indications and systems to justify their routine use except in clinical trials. Future clinical trials should evaluate the potential benefits but also dangers, so that in the meantime the routine use can be justified or a recommendation against the use can be given.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaAnesthesiologyHemoperfusionSepsisCritical CareCytokinesHumansCytokinesAdsorptionBlood purificationLiver failureRhabdomyolysisSepsis

Identifiers

PMID37707564
OpenAlexW4386725518

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.