Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39331071›Full record

ReviewDie Anaesthesiologie2024

[Extracorporeal procedures in sepsis].

Alice Bernard, Michael Koeppen

Erratum issuedAbstract readReviewEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
    2025
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alice Bernard
Michael KoeppenKlinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen, Hoppe-Seyler-Straße 3, 72076, Tübingen, Deutschland. Michael.koeppen@med.uni-tuebingen.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sepsis and septic shock are frequent and severe clinical pictures in intensive care medicine that result from a dysregulated immune response to an infection and cause a high mortality rate. This article provides an overview of the various extracorporeal procedures used to treat sepsis. Various procedures are used to treat sepsis and septic shock. These include high-volume hemofiltration (HVHF), very high-volume hemofiltration (VHVHF), high cut-off filter (HCO), polymyxin B hemoperfusion and cytokine adsorption filters. The HVHF and VHVHF remove inflammatory mediators but show no significant benefit in terms of stabilization and survival in sepsis patients. The HCO filters effectively eliminate cytokines but so far there is no evidence of a survival benefit. Polymyxin B hemoperfusion shows promising results in initial studies in certain patient groups, while evidence for cytokine adsorption filters is limited. Combined plasma filtration and adsorption (CPFA) and therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) have so far shown promising results in small studies. Although CPFA shows no survival benefit, TPE may have protective effects on the vascular glycocalyx. Extracorporeal procedures carry risks such as thrombosis and loss of proteins and clotting factors. The therapeutic benefit of these procedures in the treatment of sepsis remains unclear and further prospective randomized multicenter studies are needed to evaluate their efficacy and safety. There are currently no guideline recommendations for the routine use of these procedures in sepsis.

Indexed as

HemofiltrationHemoperfusionSepsisCytokinesExtracorporeal CirculationHumansPlasma ExchangePolymyxin BShock, SepticCytokinesPolymyxin BExtracorporeal techniquesHemofiltrationHemoperfusionPlasma exchangeSeptic shock

Identifiers

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.