Coupled plasma filtration adsorption for the treatment of sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: 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.
SUBMITTER: Li Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9422100 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Coupled plasma filtration adsorption for the treatment of sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Li Yuting Y Li Hongxiang H Guo Jianxing J Wang Youquan Y Zhang Dong D
BMC infectious diseases 20220829 1
<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>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 y ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesCoupled plasma filtration adsorption (CPFA, Bellco, Italy), to remove inflammatory mediators from blood, has been proposed as a novel treatment for septic shock. This multicenter, randomised, non-blinded trial compared CPFA with standard care in the treatment of critically ill patients with septic shock.DesignProspective, multicenter, randomised, open-label, two parallel group and superiority clinical trial.Setting18 Italian adult, general, intensive care units (ICUs).ParticipantsOf the planned 330 adult patients with septic shock, 192 were randomised to either have CPFA added to the standard care, or not. The external monitoring committee excluded eight ineligible patients who were erroneously included.InterventionsCPFA was to be performed daily for 5 days, lasting at least 10 h/day.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary endpoint was mortality at discharge from the hospital at which the patient last stayed. Secondary endpoints were: 90-day mortality, new organ failures and ICU-free days within 30 days.ResultsThere was no statistical difference in hospital mortality (47.3% controls, 45.1% CPFA; p=0.76), nor in secondary endpoints, namely the occurrence of new organ failures (55.9% vs 56.0%; p=0.99) or free-ICU days during the first 30 days (6.8 vs 7.5; p=0.35). The study was terminated on the grounds of futility. Several patients randomised to CPFA were subsequently found to be undertreated. An a priori planned subgroup analysis showed those receiving a CPFA dose >0.18 L/kg/day had a lower mortality compared with controls (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.99).ConclusionsCPFA did not reduce mortality in patients with septic shock, nor did it positively affect other important clinical outcomes. A subgroup analysis suggested that CPFA could reduce mortality, when a high volume of plasma is treated. Owing to the inherent potential biases of such a subgroup analysis, this result can only be viewed as a hypothesis generator and should be confirmed in future studies.ClinicaltrialsgovNCT00332371; ISRCTN24534559.
| S-EPMC3902195 | biostudies-literature
Project description:For more than two decades, sepsis was defined as a microbial infection that produces fever (or hypothermia), tachycardia, tachypnoea and blood leukocyte changes. Sepsis is now increasingly being considered a dysregulated systemic inflammatory and immune response to microbial invasion that produces organ injury for which mortality rates are declining to 15-25%. Septic shock remains defined as sepsis with hyperlactataemia and concurrent hypotension requiring vasopressor therapy, with in-hospital mortality rates approaching 30-50%. With earlier recognition and more compliance to best practices, sepsis has become less of an immediate life-threatening disorder and more of a long-term chronic critical illness, often associated with prolonged inflammation, immune suppression, organ injury and lean tissue wasting. Furthermore, patients who survive sepsis have continuing risk of mortality after discharge, as well as long-term cognitive and functional deficits. Earlier recognition and improved implementation of best practices have reduced in-hospital mortality, but results from the use of immunomodulatory agents to date have been disappointing. Similarly, no biomarker can definitely diagnose sepsis or predict its clinical outcome. Because of its complexity, improvements in sepsis outcomes are likely to continue to be slow and incremental.
| S-EPMC5538252 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, up to January 10, 2023.Study selectionWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing corticosteroids with placebo or standard care with sepsis.Data extractionThe critical outcomes of interest included mortality, shock reversal, length of stay in the ICU, and adverse events.Data analysisWe performed both a pairwise and dose-response meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of different corticosteroid doses on outcomes. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess certainty in pooled estimates.Data synthesisWe included 45 RCTs involving 9563 patients. Corticosteroids probably reduce short-term mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.99; moderate certainty) and increase shock reversal at 7 days (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.11-1.38; high certainty). Corticosteroids may have no important effect on duration of ICU stay (mean difference, -0.6 fewer days; 95% CI, 1.48 fewer to 0.27 more; low certainty); however, probably increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.08-1.18; moderate certainty) and hypernatremia (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.32-2.03; moderate certainty) and may increase the risk of neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.45; low certainty). The dose-response analysis showed a reduction in mortality with corticosteroids with optimal dosing of approximately 260 mg/d of hydrocortisone (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.98) or equivalent.ConclusionsWe found that corticosteroids may reduce mortality and increase shock reversal but they may also increase the risk of hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, and neuromuscular weakness. The dose-response analysis indicates optimal dosing is around 260 mg/d of hydrocortisone or equivalent.
| S-EPMC10798738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveInternational guidelines recommend dopamine or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor agents in septic shock. Phenylephrine, epinephrine, vasopressin and terlipressin are considered second-line agents. Our objective was to assess the evidence for the efficiency and safety of all vasopressors in septic shock.MethodsSystematic review and meta-analysis. We searched electronic database of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, LILACS and conference proceedings up to June 2014. We included randomized controlled trials comparing different vasopressors for the treatment of adult patients with septic shock. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Other clinical and hemodynamic measurements were extracted as secondary outcomes. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled.ResultsThirty-two trials (3,544 patients) were included. Compared to dopamine (866 patients, 450 events), norepinephrine (832 patients, 376 events) was associated with decreased all-cause mortality, RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.81-0.98), corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 11% and number needed to treat of 9. Norepinephrine was associated with lower risk for major adverse events and cardiac arrhythmias compared to dopamine. No other mortality benefit was demonstrated for the comparisons of norepinephrine to epinephrine, phenylephrine and vasopressin / terlipressin. Hemodynamic data were similar between the different vasopressors, with some advantage for norepinephrine in central venous pressure, urinary output and blood lactate levels.ConclusionsEvidence suggests a survival benefit, better hemodynamic profile and reduced adverse events rate for norepinephrine over dopamine. Norepinephrine should be regarded as the first line vasopressor in the treatment of septic shock.
| S-EPMC4523170 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Kallistatin, an endogenous serine proteinase inhibitor, is protective against sepsis in animal models. The aim of this study was to determine the plasma concentration of kallistatin in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with severe sepsis and septic shock and to determine their potential correlation with disease severity and outcomes. We enrolled 86 ICU patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. Their plasma concentrations of kallistatin, kallikrein, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, and IL-8 were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The association of kallistatin levels with disease severity and patient outcomes was evaluated. The relationship between kallistatin and other biomarkers was also analyzed. Plasma kallistatin levels on day 1 of ICU admission were lower in patients with septic shock compared with patients with severe sepsis (p = 0.004). Twenty-nine patients who died in the hospital had significantly lower day 1 kallistatin levels than patients who survived (p = 0.031). Using the optimal cutoff value (4 μg/ml) of day 1 plasma kallistatin determined by receiver operating characteristic curves for 60-day mortality, we found that high kallistatin levels were associated with a preferable 60-day survival (p = 0.012) by Kaplan-Meier analysis and lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores over the first 5 days in the ICU (p = 0.001). High kallistatin levels were also independently associated with a decreased risk of septic shock, the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome, and positive blood cultures. In addition, there were inverse correlations between day 1 kallistatin levels and the levels of TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, and C-reactive protein, and SOFA scores on day 1. Our results indicate that during severe sepsis and septic shock, a decrease in plasma concentrations of kallistatin reflects increased severity and poorer outcome of disease.
| S-EPMC5443576 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSepsis, a life-threatening organ dysfunction induced by infection, is a major public health problem. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency and mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock in China.MethodsWe Searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library from 1 January 1992 to 1 June 2020 for studies that reported on the frequency and mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock conducted in China. Random effects models were performed to estimate the pooled frequency and mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock.ResultsOur search yielded 846 results, of which 29 studies were included in this review. The pooled frequency of sepsis was estimated at 33.6% (95% CI 25.9% to 41.3%, I2 = 99.2%; p < 0.001), and the pooled mortality of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock were 29.0% (95% CI 25.3%-32.8%, I2 = 92.1%; p = 0), 31.1% (95% CI 25.3% to 36.9%, I2 = 85.8%; p < 0.001) and 37.3% (95% CI 28.6%-46.0%, I2 = 93.5%; p < 0.001). There was significant heterogeneity between studies. With a small number of included studies and the changing definition of sepsis, trends in sepsis frequency and mortality were not sufficient for analysis. Epidemiological data on sepsis in the emergency department (ED) are severely lacking, and more research is urgently needed in this area is urgently needed.ConclusionsOur findings indicated that the frequency and mortality of sepsis and septic shock in China were much higher than North America and Europe countries. Based on our results, an extremely high incidence and mortality of sepsis and septic shock in China's mainland requires more healthcare budget support. Epidemiological data on sepsis and septic shock in ED are severely lacking, and more research is urgently needed in this area. Trial registration This systematic review was conducted according to the statement of the preferred reporting items for systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42021243325) and the meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P).
| S-EPMC9210671 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe reported mortality for sepsis and septic shock varies between 15% and 59% in international comparison. For Germany, the number of studies is limited. Previous estimations of mortality in Germany are outdated or based on claims data analyses. Various authors discuss whether lacking quality initiatives and treatment standards in Germany could cause higher mortality for sepsis. This contrasts with the internationally well-recognized performance of the German intensive care infrastructure during the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectivesThe objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to estimate 30-day and 90-day mortality of patients with sepsis and patients with septic shock in Germany and to compare the mortality with that of other industrialized regions (Europe, North America).Material and methodsA systematic literature search included interventional and observational studies published between 2009 and 2020 in PubMed and the Cochrane Library that analyzed adult patients with sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock in Europe and North America. Studies with less than 20 patients were excluded. The 30-day and 90-day mortality for sepsis and septic shock were pooled separately for studies conducted in Germany, Europe (excluding Germany) and North America in a meta-analysis using a random effects model. Mortality over time was analyzed in a linear regression model.ResultsOverall, 134 studies were included. Of these, 15 studies were identified for the estimation of mortality in Germany, covering 10,434 patients, the number of patients per study ranged from 28 to 4183 patients. The 30-day mortality for sepsis was 26.50% (95% confidence interval, CI: 19.86-33.15%) in Germany, 23.85% (95% CI: 20.49-27.21%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 19.58% (95% CI: 14.03-25.14%) in North America. The 30-day mortality for septic shock was 30.48% (95% CI: 29.30-31.67%) in Germany, 34.57% (95% CI: 33.51-35.64%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 33.69% (95% CI: 31.51-35.86%) in North America. The 90-day mortality for septic shock was 38.78% (95% CI: 32.70-44.86%) in Germany, 41.90% (95% CI: 38.88-44.91%) in Europe (excluding Germany) and 34.41% (95% CI: 25.66-43.16%) in North America. A comparable decreasing trend in sepsis 30-day mortality was observed in all considered regions since 2009.ConclusionOur analysis does not support the notion that mortality related to sepsis and septic shock in Germany is higher in international comparison. A higher mortality would not be obvious either, since intensive care, for example also during the COVID-19 pandemic, is regarded as exemplary in Germany and the structural quality, such as the number of intensive care beds per 100,000 inhabitants, is high in international comparison. Nevertheless, deficits could also exist outside intensive care medicine. A comparison of international individual studies should take greater account of the structure of healthcare systems, the severity of disease and the limitations resulting from the data sources used.
| S-EPMC7871311 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe role of recombinant activated protein C (aPC) during sepsis is still controversial. It showed anti-inflammatory effect and improved the microvascular perfusion in experimental models of septic shock. The present study was aimed at testing the hypothesis that recombinant aPC therapy improves the microcirculation during severe sepsis.MethodsProspective observational study on patients admitted in a 12-beds intensive care unit of a university hospital from July 2010 to December 2011, with severe sepsis and at least two sepsis-induced organ failures occurring within 48 hours from the onset of sepsis, who received an infusion of aPC (24 mcg/kg/h for 96 hours) (aPC group). Patients with contraindications to aPC administration were also monitored (no-aPC group).At baseline (before starting aPC infusion, T0), after 24 hours (T1a), 48 hours (T1b), 72 hours (T1c) and 6 hours after the end of aPC infusion (T2), general clinical and hemodynamic parameters were collected and the sublingual microcirculation was evaluated with sidestream dark-field imaging. Total vessel density (TVD), perfused vessel density (PVD), De Backer score, microvascular flow index (MFIs), the proportion of perfused vessels (PPV) and the flow heterogeneity index (HI) were calculated for small vessels. The perfused boundary region (PBR) was measured as an index of glycocalyx damage. Variables were compared between time points and groups using non parametric or parametric statistical tests, as appropriate.ResultsIn the 13 aPC patients mean arterial pressure (MAP), base excess, lactate, PaO2/FiO2 and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score significantly improved over time, while CI and ITBVI did not change. MFIs, TVD, PVD, PPV significantly increased over time and the HI decreased (p < 0.05 in all cases), while the PBR did not change. No-aPC patients (n = 9) did not show any change in the microcirculation over time. A positive correlation was found between MFIs and MAP. TVD, PVD and De Backer score negatively correlated with norepinephrine dose, and the SOFA score negatively correlated with MFIs, TVD and PVD.ConclusionsaPC significantly improves the microcirculation in patients with severe sepsis/septic shock.Trial registrationNCT01806428.
| S-EPMC3848895 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:The global patterns and distribution of case-fatality rates (CFRs) in pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock remain poorly described. Objective:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of children with severe sepsis and septic shock to elucidate the patterns of CFRs in developing and developed countries over time. We also described factors associated with CFRs. Data Sources:We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Excerpta Medica database, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Cochrane Central systematically for randomized clinical trials and prospective observational studies from earliest publication until January 2017, using the keywords "pediatric," "sepsis," "septic shock," and "mortality." Study Selection:Studies involving children with severe sepsis and septic shock that reported CFRs were included. Retrospective studies and studies including only neonates were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis:We conducted our systematic review and meta-analysis in close accordance to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Pooled case-fatality estimates were obtained using random-effects meta-analysis. The associations of study period, study design, sepsis severity, age, and continents in which studies occurred were assessed with meta-regression. Main Outcomes and Measures:Meta-analyses to provide pooled estimates of CFR of pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock over time. Results:Ninety-four studies that included 7561 patients were included. Pooled CFRs were higher in developing countries (31.7% [95% CI, 27.3%-36.4%]) than in developed countries (19.3% [95% CI, 16.4%-22.7%]; P < .001). Meta-analysis of CFRs also showed significant heterogeneity across studies. Continents that include mainly developing countries reported higher CFRs (adjusted odds ratios: Africa, 7.89 [95% CI, 6.02-10.32]; P < .001; Asia, 3.81 [95% CI, 3.60-4.03]; P < .001; South America, 2.91 [95% CI, 2.71-3.12]; P < .001) than North America. Septic shock was associated with higher CFRs than severe sepsis (adjusted odds ratios, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.41-1.54]). Younger age was also a risk factor (adjusted odds ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.94-0.96] per year of increase in age). Earlier study eras were associated with higher CFRs (adjusted odds ratios for 1991-2000, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.13-1.37]; P < .001) compared with 2011 to 2016. Time-trend analysis showed higher CFRs over time in developing countries than developed countries. Conclusions and Relevance:Despite the declining trend of pediatric severe sepsis and septic shock CFRs, the disparity between developing and developed countries persists. Further characterizations of vulnerable populations and collaborations between developed and developing countries are warranted to reduce the burden of pediatric sepsis globally.
| S-EPMC6450287 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate mortality from sepsis and septic shock in Korea during the past 10 years, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched six databases for studies on mortality from sepsis and septic shock in adult patients. Primary outcomes were 28- or 30-day mortality and in-hospital mortality from sepsis and septic shock. To assess the risk of bias, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Risk of Bias 2 tools. The protocol is registered in PROSPERO (No. CRD42022365739).ResultsA total of 61 studies were included. The mortality rates from sepsis and septic shock at 28 or 30 days were 22.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 20.0%-25.6%; I2=89%) and 27.6% (95% CI, 22.3%-33.5%; I2=98%), respectively, according to the Sepsis-3 criteria. Furthermore, in accordance with the Sepsis-3 criteria, the in-hospital mortality rates were 28.1% (95% CI, 25.2%-31.1%; I2=87%) and 34.3% (95% CI, 27.2%-42.2%; I2=97%), respectively.ConclusionThe mortality rates from sepsis and septic shock in Korea are high. In the case of septic shock, the in-hospital mortality rate is approximately 30%.
| S-EPMC10350360 | biostudies-literature