Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.
Skip to main content
Download PDF

Use of extracorporeal blood purification therapies in sepsis: the current paradigm, available evidence, and future perspectives

Critical Care volume 28, Article number: 432 (2024) Cite this article

Matters Arising to this article was published on 19 March 2025

Matters Arising to this article was published on 25 January 2025

Abstract

Background

Sepsis is the result of a dysregulated immune response to infection and is associated with acute organ dysfunction. The syndrome’s complexity is contingent upon the underlying pathology and individual patient characteristics, including their immune response. The involvement of multiple organs and physiological functions adds complexity, with “organ cross-talk” emerging as a pivotal pathophysiological and clinical aspect. This narrative review to evaluate the rationale and available clinical evidence supporting the use of extracorporeal blood purification therapies as adjunctive therapy in patients with sepsis and septic shock.

Main body

A search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus databases for relevant literature from August 2002 to May 2024 has been conducted. The search was performed using the terms: 1) “blood purification” or “hemadsorption” or “plasma exchange” AND 2) “sepsis” or “septic shock”. Therefore the authors have focused our discussion on several key areas such as conducting well-designed trials, developing more personalized protocols, ensuring optimal management and monitoring.

Conclusions

Given the heterogeneity of patients with sepsis, conducting traditional randomized clinical trials in this domain can be a daunting task. However, statistical techniques such as Bayesian methods, propensity score analysis, and emulated clinical trials using clinical databases hold promise for enhancing comparability between the study groups. Indeed, to comprehend the clinical efficacy of extracorporeal blood purification techniques in patients with sepsis, it is imperative to assemble homogeneous groups of patients receiving uniform treatments. Clinical strategies should be individualized, signaling the end of the “one size fits all” approach in sepsis therapy and the need for personalized treatments.

Graphical abstract

Current suggested best practice for use of cytokine hemadsorption in sepsis.

Background

Sepsis is defined as “life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated response of the host to infection” [1]. This definition highlights two critical aspects: (a) the host response to infection is a normal and appropriate defense mechanism; (b) in some individuals the response becomes “dysregulated” and harmful, with tissue injury and failure to return to homeostasis. Sepsis pathogenesis therefore involves a “dysregulated” pro and an anti-inflammatory process that can occur quite early in the clinical course [2]. Such “dysregulated” release of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines explains the “exacerbated response” that has been associated with the clinical picture of fulminant septic shock and premature death [3]. Recent data suggest that this complex biological response does not translate into a homogeneous clinical scenario as every patient follows their own immune response trajectory [2].

Given the high mortality rates associated with sepsis, there is a continuing need for active research into potential therapies to improve patient outcomes. Multiple avenues have been explored over the past decades, targeting individual components or pathways of the immune response, with limited success [4,5,6]. Cavaillon and collaborators have suggested that the “exacerbated response” may be associated with a reprogramming of circulating leukocytes, which induces immune-paralysis to endotoxins and a remodulation of metabolism that can translate into immune dysfunction, with a high risk of secondary infections, organ function failure, and death [7]. In an early pilot study, Ronco and collaborators noted that this phenomenon of leukocytes being “deaf” to the stimulus of endotoxins could be reversed by eliminating cytokines by adsorption [8], raising a potential role for blood purification in the treatment of septic shock. In this context, Extracorporeal Blood Purification Therapies (EBPTs) are increasingly employed in critical care settings. In an area still affected by considerable uncertainty, the current paradigm of their clinical application is to dedicate these treatments to patients with concomitant Acute Kidney Injury, or as “final rescue therapies” [9].

This manuscript details a narrative review among European clinical scientists from various specialties, including intensive care, critical care nephrology, and physiology. The authors convened to examine the critical aspects of implementing EBPTs in septic patients. Topics included have been practical challenges, limitations, and future research directions, with a focus on improving patient selection criteria, optimizing treatment strategies, and exploring innovative research methodologies. The narrative review has been enriched with a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases between August 2002 and May 2024 using the search terms [“blood purification” or “hemadsorption” or “plasma exchange”] AND [“sepsis” or “septic shock”]. We searched for EBPTs studies data in critically ill patients with sepsis, septic shock, refractory septic shock, Covid-19, collecting more than 30 studies and 4.000 recruited patients (supplementary Table 1).

Rationale for use of extracorporeal therapies in sepsis

Renal replacement therapies (RRTs), such as hemodialysis or hemofiltration, are used to reinforce or replace renal function in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI), acting to ensure fluid and chemical balance in the body and eliminate waste products. Use of RRT is essential for patients with AKI, including sepsis-associated AKI, and is associated with an improvement in various hemodynamic parameters [10]. As the complex pathophysiology of sepsis became better understood, it was proposed that some forms of RRT could have additional benefits in patients with sepsis, by removing (some of) the excess sepsis mediators. The “peak concentration” hypothesis was proposed in 2003, suggesting that the partial removal of cytokines from circulating blood could reduce peak concentrations during the early stages of sepsis, thus helping to regulate the inflammatory cascade [11]. The potential benefits of such extracorporeal blood purification therapies have been further emphasized by recognition of the importance of “organ cross-talk” during sepsis, in which dysfunction of one organ can affect other organ systems, particularly in the context of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). Ronco and Bellomo first introduced the concept of multi-organ support therapy (MOST) in 2002 [12, 13], which later evolved into the concept of extracorporeal organ support (ECOS) [14, 15]. However, no randomized controlled trial (RCTs) has yet shown a significant improvement in clinical outcomes associated with the use of these techniques.

Renal replacement therapy

Following the early pilot study by Ronco and colleagues mentioned earlier [8], various clinical trials using different forms of RRT in sepsis were conducted. Ratanarat et al. [16] evaluated the effects of prolonged intermittent high-volume hemofiltration (PHVHF) in 15 critically ill patients with sepsis and reported that hemodynamics improved with treatment, enabling the dose of norepinephrine to be reduced. Tapia et al. [17] evaluated the efficacy of high-volume hemofiltration (HVHF) in 31 patients with refractory septic shock, and reported an improvement in hemodynamic, metabolic, and respiratory parameters; there was a trend toward a reduction in hospital mortality. However, the three main RCTs [18,19,20] carried out in adults did not show an advantage of HVHF over standard volume hemofiltration (SVHF) in terms of mortality or vasopressor requirement. For these reasons, the minimum effective dose for veno-venous haemofiltration remains 35–40 ml/kg/h, with an increased risk of loss of micronutrients, vitamins, trace elements, drugs such as antibiotics at higher doses [21].

Plasma exchange and coupled plasma filtration and adsorption

Therapeutic Plasma Exchange (TPE) involves the removal of a patient’s plasma, followed by replacement with fluids such as 5% albumin or fresh frozen plasma (FFP). This procedure aims to reduce harmful substances in the plasma, including autoantibodies, pro-inflammatory cytokines, other inflammatory mediators such as chemokines, and clotting factors. In critical care settings, TPE can help restore immune homeostasis, decrease systemic inflammation, and improve microcirculation. There are two main techniques for performing plasma exchange: membrane plasma exchange (mTPE) and centrifugal plasma exchange (cTPE). mTPE uses specialized hollow-fiber filters to separate plasma from blood based on molecular size, whereas cTPE relies on centrifugal force to separate plasma based on differences in density between blood components. While both techniques are effective, mTPE is often preferred in critically ill patients with hemodynamic instability because it can be integrated with continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). On the other hand, cTPE may offer advantages in terms of higher plasma removal rates and is typically performed in stable patients. Several studies [22,23,24,25], while promising, do not provide definitive evidence that PEX improves outcomes in critically ill children, and further clinical investigation is required. Although TPE has shown promise in modulating the immune and coagulation systems in septic shock, its role in patients with multiorgan failure remains uncertain. The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) has classified TPE for septic shock as Category III, Grade 2B. This classification indicates that the evidence for TPE’s effectiveness is conflicting or uncertain, and its use is not yet fully endorsed as a standard treatment [26] (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The figure reports a summary of the device available on the market, mechanism of function and clinical indication of extracorporeal blood purification techniques including hemoadsorption, plasma exchange, coupled plasma filtration and adsorption

Full size image

CPFA (Continuous Plasma Filtration Adsorption) is an extracorporeal blood purification therapy designed to address the inflammatory mediators and toxins that contribute to the systemic inflammation in conditions like septic shock. The therapy operates in two stages plasma separation and adsorption. In a Prospective Multicenter Trial, Livigni et al. [27] included 330 septic shock patients and found that CPFA did not reduce mortality or improve other major clinical outcomes, despite the early hemodynamic benefits. Interestingly, a subgroup of patients receiving a higher CPFA dose (greater than 0.18 L/kg/day) showed a potential mortality reduction, but this was not sufficient to alter the overall study outcome. Consequently, Garbero et al. [28] enrolled 115 septic shock patients and assessed the efficacy of high-dose CPFA. Surprisingly, the study found higher mortality in the CPFA group compared to controls, especially in patients without severe renal failure (non-AKI) (Fig. 1).

Hemoadsorption

More recently, hemadsorption, with sorbents specifically incorporated to remove cytokines and other inflammatory mediators, has established itself as the most widely studied extracorporeal intervention in the context of clinical sepsis [29]. In vitro and ex vivo studies have recently demonstrated the effectiveness of hemadsorption in reducing circulating mediators, in particular cytokines, in sepsis [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. Gruda et al. [48] have shown that hemadsorption through porous polymer bead devices have reduced the levels of a broad spectrum of cytokines (MIP1-α, IL-6, and IFN-γ, TNF-α DAMPS (C5a, HMGB-1, procalcitonin, and S100-A8), PAMPS (α-toxin, SpeB, and TSST-1) and mycotoxins (aflatoxin, T-2 toxin). Malard et al. [49] have investigated endotoxins and cytokines hemoadsorption using different devices and showing a different removal depending on the device selected and the target mediators. Harm et al. [50] have demonstrated that sorbents can remodulate several cytokines as ICAM-1, E-selectin, and secreted cytokines IL-8 and IL-6. Nierhaus et al. [31] performed an analysis of two blood purification systems to determine their performance for removing interleukins (ILs)-6 and 10, tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-a and monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP)-1 from blood. Both the CytoSorb and the Jafron HA 380 devices are capable of removing cytokines from blood in a benchtop model.

In healthy volunteers challenged with lipopolysaccharide, Jansen et al. [30] used pre–post sorbent measurements, a procedure that enables calculation of mass balance as well as clearance, to determine the effects of hemadsorption on cytokine levels, notably interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, IL-10 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha. Cytokine levels were significantly lower in subjects who received hemadsorption. Many clinical studies have shown beneficial effects of hemadsorption on hemodynamics [33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52], need for organ support [53,54,55,56], and the microcirculation [57,58,59]. The use of statistical tools, such as propensity score matching, has made it possible to form as much as possible homogeneous groups of patients to enable analyses of effects on mortality to be conducted, albeit retrospectively [52, 60, 61]; results have suggested short and long-term improvement in survival with hemadsorption. These statistical methods were performed in single-center, retrospective studies that included low sample sizes [52, 60, 61].

Attempts to confirm these results in removing cytokines and endotoxin, by designing RCTs, has led to contradictory results [62, 63]. Two large multicenter RCTs referring to endotoxins’ removal comparing polymyxin-B hemadsorption, to conventional treatment in peritonitis induced septic shock [64, 65], demonstrated a non-significant increase in mortality and no improvement in organ failure. However, doubts were raised related to the heterogeneity of the study populations, the mode of application of the therapies, and the patient selection in these studies [66, 67].

The same limitations (e.g. heterogeneity of patients) are present in other RCTs in critically ill patients and sepsis regarding hemoadsorption to remove broad spectrum cytokines [13, 68,69,70,71,72,73,74]. Important confounding factors in population selection between the treatment and control groups resulting in unbalanced groups, with more severe patients in the intervention groups, is a common finding among studies [75, 76]. In several studies significative differences at baseline between control and study group in the inclusion criteria (e.g. CVVH or non CVVH patients) of septic patients may have led to confounding results (e.g. 63–64). This type of bias is not surprising given that current data, and clinical experience, suggest that hemadsorption may be most effective in the most severely ill patients at high risk of death (e.g., high sequential organ failure assessment [SOFA] score) [77], although propensity matched studies have suggested that patients with lactate levels higher than 6–7, 5 mmol/l had worse outcome [52, 61].

Given these caveats, it is not surprising that meta-analyses based on these RCTs have also provided controversial results on the effectiveness of extracorporeal blood purification therapies on survival [78,79,80]. Nevertheless, in a meta-analysis of 16 RCTs, Zhou et al. [81] reported that blood purification reduced mortality compared to no blood purification, and, in a meta-analysis of 37 RCTs, Putzu and coauthors [82] concluded that, despite the very low quality of the evidence analyzed, hemoperfusion, hemofiltration, and plasmapheresis were associated with lower mortality compared to conventional therapy. Similar results were reported in a more recent network meta-analysis of 60 RCTs [83]. Focusing specifically on hemadsorption, while recent consensus guidelines have recommended the use of hemadsorption even as a standalone modality for immunomodulatory support in septic AKI patients [84], some systematic reviews and meta-analyses [78,79,80] have concluded that there is no evidence that this technique has positive effects on outcomes in sepsis and insufficient evidence to support a recommendation for its use, and it may even increase mortality. However, once again, the meta-analyses reported that some of the included trials were of very low quality due to imprecision, risk bias and study heterogeneity [75](Fig. 1).

Future research of extracorporeal blood purification in sepsis

As previously noted, the available evidence regarding the use of extracorporeal blood purification therapies is inconclusive. Given the limitations of RCTs in this field, associated with heterogeneity in populations and modes and dosing of blood purification therapies, the future of extracorporeal blood purification in sepsis lies in a move from large-scale randomized trials to tailored and adaptive studies targeting specific and objective patient criteria with standardized therapeutic protocols. Personalization should be integrated into trial protocols so that more specific patient groups and subgroups are defined in which a particular treatment has proven beneficial. However, designing randomized trials that adequately address the heterogeneity of sepsis while maintaining scientific rigor is challenging. Ensuring adequate patient selection, standardizing interventions, including dosing and timing, and controlling confounding variables are critical but difficult tasks. Creating groups of comparable patients is essential to evaluate the effectiveness of any intervention. In this context, statistical techniques such as Bayesian methods, propensity score analysis and emulated clinical studies using clinical databases seem promising to improve comparability between groups [60, 61]. Non-interventional studies may allow precise targeted population, with long term standardized data assessment, although without randomization [85]. Addressing these challenges requires collaboration between researchers, clinicians, and policymakers to design and implement studies that better reflect the complexity of real-world sepsis.

Heterogeneity in study populations

Patient selection using endotyping with genomic analysis is still in its infancy and is primarily limited to sepsis research [86]. Recently, the authors have examined this issue, concluding that a more personalized approach based on “omics” techniques that focus on a specific class of compounds (DNA, RNA, proteins, metabolites, lipids, epigenetic modifications, microbial communities), will be possible in the near future [87]. These techniques will enable the simultaneous characterization of multiple patient factors, providing a more complete understanding of the biological processes, and it is hoped that with advances in computing power and technology, the real-time analysis of data collected from patients will also become feasible in the clinic.

Meanwhile, personalization of treatments can be improved, as a basis for more meaningful RCTs [86], by using specific biomarker profiles at the bedside to select more homogeneous populations. Real-time biomarker levels, in combination with other important mediators of sepsis (DAMPs, PAMPs, cytokines) and the clinical picture, can already provide a rapid indication of patient phenotypes. Physiological biomarkers such as the presence of microcirculatory alterations can also be considered.

Heterogeneity in dosing of extracorporeal blood purification therapies

Different extracorporeal blood purification therapies have different mechanisms of action and a good understanding of these mechanisms is fundamental to enable critical evaluation of the existing scientific literature on this topic and correct application in clinical practice. The dose–response characteristics of extracorporeal therapy in sepsis have not been fully explored and, as with other “drugs”, underdosing or overdosing could reduce its efficacy. Experience in patients with chronic kidney disease, indicates that as long as we are unable to define the purifying capacity of extracorporeal therapy by measurement of mass balances normalized to a patient’s characteristics (Kt/V), it is not possible to understand how this intervention can influence patient outcomes [88]. This theory is much more than probably true also in overwhelming inflammatory diseases, such as sepsis. Many in vitro and in vivo studies have linked the “quantity” of therapy administered to its clinical effects. In a cohort of severely ill patients, Schultz et Al. have shown that the observed mortality rate was reduced if the blood purification volumes had inadvertently exceeded 6 l/kg BW (Body Weight). ABP (Amount of Blood Purified) was associated with survival [89]. Of particular interest, studies in pediatric patients [90, 91], in whom the treatment dose is generally higher than in adults, have shown more positive results than studies in adults. Of note, dose considerations include not only the duration of the treatment but also the blood flow and how often to change the sorbent filters. The existing evidence often correlates negative results on outcomes to “underdosed” extracorporeal blood purification or inhomogeneous delivery of extracorporeal treatment (the same techniques but different devices, over-short delivery times, session times incorrectly programmed, etc.) [78]. Further study is needed to better define optimal dosing strategies.

Heterogeneity in the timing of extracorporeal blood purification therapies

Extracorporeal blood purification is currently an adjunct therapy, therefore there is no clearly defined “correct” time to start it. A pragmatic approach to escalating to adjuvant therapies, including extracorporeal treatments, in sepsis involves assessment of the evolving clinical course [92, 93]. Important parameters to be considered in the patient trajectory could include escalation of organ dysfunction scores, perfusion indexes, vasopressor load, and increasing biomarker levels [92, 93]. Importantly, given the heterogeneity of sepsis populations, e.g., in terms of delay since sepsis diagnosis, degree of immune response, etc., extracorporeal blood purification should not be started at the same set time period in all patients in large clinical trials, but in a more personalized manner. Kogelmann et al. have found that, in the hemadsorption patient, actual mortality was lower than mortality predicted by APACHE II score (Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation) and associated with hemodynamic stabilization and a reduction in blood lactate levels. These effects are more pronounced in patients in whom therapy started within 24 h of sepsis diagnosis [94].

Endpoints for future studies

Focusing on mortality as the endpoint for trials of blood purification in sepsis will likely lead to failure to demonstrate a consistent effect for several reasons [95]. First, blood purification is an adjunct intervention aimed at gaining time for primary therapies, such as antibiotics, vasopressors, etc., to act. If the primary therapy is not appropriate or effective in a particular patient, then any adjunct therapy will not improve outcomes either. Moreover, given the heterogeneous nature of patients with sepsis, one intervention is unlikely to be effective in all. Second, multiple factors influence mortality, which will vary across individual patients. Third, randomized studies provide an estimate of the average effect on the population tested and do not inform us about which patients in particular will benefit from the treatment or to what extent [2, 96].

Endpoints other than mortality may offer greater or additional clarity in terms of a therapy’s effectiveness. A shift in attention towards morbidity endpoints (such as the use of vasopressors, the need for mechanical ventilation, the length of stay in the intensive care unit, the prevention of chronic kidney disease, quality of life) is needed. However, some of these are more difficult to measure objectively and homogeneously, making comparisons across studies more difficult. From a physiological point of view, one of the first objectives in resuscitation in septic shock should be restoration of microvascular blood flow to enable adequate organ perfusion. Currently, mean arterial pressure, venous oxygen saturation, or lactate levels are used as surrogate indicators of tissue perfusion, as a direct and reliable measurement is not yet widely available [97, 98]. These variables should be routinely included in new studies of extracorporeal blood therapies in sepsis.

Considerations for current clinical practice

The most rational approach currently, while awaiting definitive results, seems to be to adopt a personalized approach, with careful patient selection, personalized treatment starts according to patient evolution, and adequate dosing. Defining the most appropriate therapy for individual patients should take into account hemodynamic and metabolic results, such as inotrope dosages, vasoactive inotropic score (VIS), mean arterial pressure (MAP), lactate levels, pH, etc. Given the important contributions of cytokines to endothelial dysfunction, a central factor in the pathophysiology and etiology of sepsis, effects on microcirculatory aspects should also be considered, although routine monitoring of the microcirculation is not yet widely available.

A pragmatic approach to determine when to escalate to an adjuvant therapy in sepsis, such as extracorporeal blood purification, involves assessment of a worsening clinical course despite optimal primary therapy [92, 93]. Important parameters to be considered for this purpose include escalation of organ dysfunction scores, perfusion indexes, vasopressor load, and increasing biomarker levels [92, 93].

Importantly extracorporeal therapies can influence doses of other drugs administered concomitantly, including antibiotics. Antibiotic administration must therefore always be carefully adjusted when used in conjunction with an extracorporeal blood purification therapy. Therapeutic drug monitoring should be performed when possible and if laboratory support is not available, PK/PD (pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic) evaluations should be based on patient condition and the type of EBPT being used [99, 100].

Conclusions

There is an urgent need for greater clarity regarding use of adjunctive extracorporeal therapies in sepsis. Expecting a single therapy to drastically reduce mortality from sepsis is not realistic, primarily due to the multifaceted nature of the septic syndrome. Integration of additional therapies, such as extracorporeal blood purification, within treatment protocols can optimize patient care and improve outcomes, but these must be applied at the correct time and dose, also taking into account the interference that all such therapies have with drugs, and with antibiotics in particular. The era of “one size fits all” in sepsis therapy is over, and the time has come for a paradigm shift toward more focused approaches in both clinical practice and research.

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

EBPTs:

Extracorporeal blood purification therapies

sIPTW:

Inverse probability of treatment weights

RRT:

Renal replacement therapies

AKI:

Acute kidney injury

MODS:

Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome

MOST:

Multi-organ support therapy

ECOS:

Extracorporeal organ support

PHVHF:

Prolonged intermittent high-volume hemofiltration

HVHF:

High-volume hemofiltration

RCTs:

Randomized control trials

IL:

Interleukin

TNF:

Tumor necrosis factor

CVVH:

Continuous veno-venous hemofiltration

SOFA score:

Sequential organ failure assessment score

DAMPS:

Damage-associated molecular patterns

PAMPS:

Pathogen-associated molecular patterns

BW:

Body weight

ABP:

Amount of blood purified

APACHE:

Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation

VIS:

Vasoactive inotropic score

MAP:

Mean arterial pressure

PK/PD:

Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic

References

  1. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, Bellomo R, Bernard GR, Chiche JD, Coopersmith CM, Hotchkiss RS, Levy MM, Marshall JC, Martin GS, Opal SM, Rubenfeld GD, van der Poll T, Vincent JL, Angus DC. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–10. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0287.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Vincent JL, van der Poll T, Marshall JC. The end of “one size fits all” sepsis therapies: toward an individualized approach. Biomedicines. 2022;10(9):2260. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10092260.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Daniel M, Bedoui Y, Vagner D, Raffray L, Ah-Pine F, Doray B, Gasque P. Pathophysiology of Sepsis and genesis of septic shock: the critical role of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(16):9274. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23169274.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Ranieri VM, Thompson BT, Barie PS, Dhainaut JF, Douglas IS, Finfer S, Gårdlund B, Marshall JC, Rhodes A, Artigas A, Payen D, Tenhunen J, Al-Khalidi HR, Thompson V, Janes J, Macias WL, Vangerow B, Williams MD, PROWESS-SHOCK Study Group. Drotrecogin alfa (activated) in adults with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(22):2055–64. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1202290.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Abraham E, Wunderink R, Silverman H, et al. Efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibody to human tumor necrosis factor alpha in patients with sepsis syndrome. A randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter clinical trial TNF-alpha Mab Sepsis Study Group. JAMA. 1995;273:934–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Opal SM, Fisher CJ Jr, Dhainaut JF, et al. Confirmatory interleukin-1 receptor antagonist trial in severe sepsis: a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. The Interleukin-1 Receptor Antagonist Sepsis Investigator Group. Crit Care Med. 1997;25:1115–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cavaillon JM, Adrie C, Fitting C, Adib-Conquy M. Reprogramming of circulatory cells in sepsis and SIRS. J Endotoxin Res. 2005;11:311–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ronco C, Brendolan A, Lonnemann G, Bellomo R, Piccinni P, Digito A, Dan M, Irone M, La Greca G, Inguaggiato P, Maggiore U, De Nitti C, Wratten ML, Ricci Z, Tetta C. A pilot study of coupled plasma filtration with adsorption in septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2002;30(6):1250–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200206000-00015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mehta Y, Paul R, Ansari AS, Banerjee T, Gunaydin S, Nassiri AA, Pappalardo F, Premužić V, Sathe P, Singh V, Vela ER. Extracorporeal blood purification strategies in sepsis and septic shock: an insight into recent advancements. World J Crit Care Med. 2023;12(2):71–88. https://doi.org/10.5492/wjccm.v12.i2.71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hellman T, Uusalo P, Järvisalo MJ. Renal replacement techniques in septic shock. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(19):10238. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms221910238.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Ronco C, Tetta C, Mariano F, Wratten ML, Bonello M, Bordoni V, et al. Interpreting the mechanisms of continuous renal replacement therapy in sepsis: the peak concentration hypothesis. Artif Organs. 2003;27(9):792–801.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ronco C, Bellomo R. Acute renal failure and multiple organ dysfunction in the ICU: from renal replacement therapy (RRT) to multiple organ support therapy (MOST). Int J Artif Organs. 2002;25(8):733–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/039139880202500801.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Ricci Z, Romagnoli S, Ronco C, La Manna G. From continuous renal replacement therapies to multiple organ support therapy. Contrib Nephrol. 2018;194:155–69. https://doi.org/10.1159/000485634.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ranieri VM, Brodie D, Vincent JL. Extracorporeal organ support: from technological tool to clinical strategy supporting severe organ failure. JAMA. 2017;318(12):1105–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.10108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Husain-Syed F, Ricci Z, Brodie D, Vincent JL, Ranieri VM, Slutsky AS, Taccone FS, Gattinoni L, Ronco C. Extracorporeal organ support (ECOS) in critical illness and acute kidney injury: from native to artificial organ crosstalk. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(9):1447–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5329-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ratanarat R, Brendolan A, Piccinni P, Dan M, Salvatori G, Ricci Z, Ronco C. Pulse high-volume haemofiltration for treatment of severe sepsis: effects on hemodynamics and survival. Crit Care. 2005;9(4):R294-302. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc3529.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Tapia P, Chinchón E, Morales D, Stehberg J, Simon F. Effectiveness of short-term 6-hour high-volume hemofiltration during refractory severe septic shock. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;72(5):1228–37. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e318248bc6c.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Palevsky PM, Zhang JH, O’Connor TZ, Chertow GM, Crowley ST, Choudhury D, et al. Intensity of renal support in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. N Engl Med. 2008;359(1):7–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bellomo R, Cass A, Cole L, Finfer S, Gallagher M, Lo S, et al. Intensity of conitnuous renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients. N Engl Med. 2009;361:1627–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Joannes-Boyau O, Honorè PM, Perez P, Bagshaw SM, Grand H, Canivet JL, et al. High-volume versus standard-volume haemofiltration for septic shock patients with acute kidney injury (IVOIRE study): a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:1535–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lehner GF, Wiedermann CJ, Joannidis M. High-volume hemofiltration in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Minerva Anestesiol. 2014;80(5):595–609.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Nguyen TC, Han YY, Kiss JE, Hall MW, Hassett AC, Jaffe R, Orr RA, Janosky J, Carcillo JA. Intensive plasma exchange increases a disintegrin and metalloprotease with thrombospondin motifs-13 activity and reverses organ dysfunction in children with thrombocytopenia-associated multiple organ failure. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(10):2878–87. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e318186aa49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Long EJ, Taylor A, Delzoppo C, Shann F, Pearson G, Buckley D, Butt W. A randomised controlled trial of plasma filtration in severe paediatric sepsis. Crit Care Resusc. 2013 Sep;15(3):198-204. Erratum in: Crit Care Resusc. 2016 Dec;18(4):289. PMID: 23944206

  24. Stahl K, Schmidt JJ, Seeliger B, Schmidt BMW, Welte T, Haller H, Hoeper MM, Budde U, Bode C, David S. Effect of therapeutic plasma exchange on endothelial activation and coagulation-related parameters in septic shock. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-2799-5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. David S, Bode C, Putensen C, Welte T, Stahl K, EXCHANGE study group. Adjuvant therapeutic plasma exchange in septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(3):352–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-06339-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Connelly-Smith L, Alquist CR, Aqui NA, Hofmann JC, Klingel R, Onwuemene OA, Patriquin CJ, Pham HP, Sanchez AP, Schneiderman J, Witt V, Zantek ND, Dunbar NM. Guidelines on the use of therapeutic apheresis in clinical practice—evidence-based approach from the writing Committee of the American Society for Apheresis: the ninth special issue. Intensive Care Med. 2023;38(2):77–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/jca.22043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Livigni S, Bertolini G, Rossi C, Ferrari F, Giardino M, Pozzato M, Remuzzi G. GiViTI: Gruppo Italiano per la Valutazione degli interventi in terapia intensiva (Italian Group for the Evaluation of Interventions in Intensive Care Medicine) is an independent collaboration network of Italian intensive care units. Efficacy of coupled plasma filtration adsorption (CPFA) in patients with septic shock: a multicenter randomised controlled clinical trial. BMJ Open. 2014;4(1):e003536. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003536.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Garbero E, Livigni S, Ferrari F, Finazzi S, Langer M, Malacarne P, Meca MCC, Mosca S, Olivieri C, Pozzato M, Rossi C, Tavola M, Terzitta M, Viaggi B, Bertolini G. GiViTI. High dose coupled plasma filtration and adsorption in septic shock patients Results of the COMPACT-2 a multicentre, adaptive, randomised clinical trial. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(11):1303–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06501-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mehta Y, Mehta C, Kumar A, George JV, Gupta A, Nanda S, Kochhar G, Raizada A. Experience with hemoadsorption (CytoSorb®) in the management of septic shock patients. World J Crit Care Med. 2020;9(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.5492/wjccm.v9.i1.1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Jansen A, Waalders NJB, van Lier DPT, Kox M, Pickkers P. CytoSorb hemoperfusion markedly attenuates circulating cytokine concentrations during systemic inflammation in humans in vivo. Crit Care. 2023;27(1):117. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04391-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Nierhaus A, Morales J, Wendt D, Scheier J, Gutzler D, Jarczak D, Born F, Hagl C, Deliargyris E, Mehta Y. Comparison of the CytoSorb® 300 mL and Jafron HA380 hemoadsorption devices: an in vitro study. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2022;31(7):1058–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645706.2022.2104617.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. de Cal M, Lorenzin A, Risino B, Zanetti F, Fanton G, Fallico L, Rassu M, De Rosa S, Ronco C, Zanella M. Extracorporeal therapy in the treatment of sepsis: in vitro assessment of the effect of an absorbent cartridge on the circulating bacterial concentration and its interaction with the antibiotic therapy. Int J Artif Organs. 2023;46(6):344–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/03913988231168155.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Huang Z, Wang SR, Su W, Liu JY. Removal of humoral mediators and the effect on the survival of septic patients by hemoperfusion with neutral microporous resin column. Ther Apher Dial. 2010;14(6):596–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-9987.2010.00825.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhou J, et al. Removal of inflammatory factors and prognosis of patients with septic shock complicated with acute kidney injury by hemodiafiltration combined with HA330-II hemoperfusion. Ther Apher Dial. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-9987.14108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zhu G, et al. Effect of the combination of HA380 hemoperfusion with CVVHDF on inflammatory indices and microcirculation in early septic shock. Trop J Pharm Res. 2024;23(1):183–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Efe S, Hanci P, Inal V. Survival benefit of resin cartridge extracorporeal blood purification therapy in patients with septic shock. Turk J Med Sci. 2024;54(1):128.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Onuk S, et al. The clinical and laboratory efficacy of HA 330 treatment combined with continuous renal replacement therapy in septic shock patients: a case series. Blood Purif. 2023;52(2):140–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Samransamruajkit TS, Rujipat. The role of blood purification by HA330 as adjunctive treatment in children with septic shock. Blood Purif. 2023;52:549–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sánchez-Morán Fernando, et al. Haemoadsorption combined with continuous renal replacement therapy in abdominal sepsis: case report series. J Pers Med. 2023;13(7):1113.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Koc S, Dokur M, Uysal H. Analysis of the effects of ha-330 hemo adsorption column application on mortality and morbidity of adult patients with sepsis in general intensive care unit. Med-Science. 2022. https://doi.org/10.5455/medscience.2021.09.320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Koc S, et al. Can the reduction of cytokines stop the progression of sepsis? Cureus. 2022. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.22325.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Erkurt MA, Sarici A, Ozer AB, et al. The effect of HA330 hemoperfusion adsorbent method on inflammatory markers and end-organ damage levels in sepsis: a retrospective single center study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2022;26(21):8112–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Sazonov V, Abylkassov R, Tobylbayeva Z, Saparov A, Mironova O, Poddighe D. Case series: efficacy and safety of hemoadsorption with HA-330 adsorber in septic pediatric patients with cancer. Front Pediatr. 2021;9:672260.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Kaçar CK, et al. Efficacy of HA330 hemoperfusion adsorbent in patients followed in the intensive care unit for septic shock and acute kidney injury and treated with continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration as renal replacement therapy. Blood Purif. 2020;49(4):448–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Chu L, et al. Clinical effects of hemoperfusion combined with pulse high-volume hemofiltration on septic shock. Medicine. 2020;99(9):e19058.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Arslan B, et al. A single-center experience with resin adsorption hemoperfusion combined with continuous veno-venous hemofiltration for septic shock patients. Med Sci. 2019;8(2):390–4.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Koc S, et al. Comparison of cytokine hemadsorption as an immunomodulator therapy in COVID-19 patients with and without bacterial sepsis. Clin Lab. 2022. https://doi.org/10.7754/Clin.Lab.2022.211249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Gruda MC, Ruggeberg KG, O’Sullivan P, Guliashvili T, Scheirer AR, Golobish TD, Capponi VJ, Chan PP. Broad adsorption of sepsis-related PAMP and DAMP molecules, mycotoxins, and cytokines from whole blood using CytoSorb® sorbent porous polymer beads. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0191676. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191676.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Malard B, Lambert C, Kellum JA. In vitro comparison of the adsorption of inflammatory mediators by blood purification devices. Intensive Care Med Exp. 2018;6(1):12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-018-0177-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Harm S, Gabor F, Hartmann J. Characterization of adsorbents for cytokine removal from blood in an in vitro model. J Immunol Res. 2015;2015:484736. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/484736.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Hawchar F, László I, Öveges N, Trásy D, Ondrik Z, Molnar Z. Extracorporeal cytokine adsorption in septic shock: a proof of concept randomized, controlled pilot study. J Crit Care. 2019;49:172–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.11.003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Rugg C, Klose R, Hornung R, Innerhofer N, Bachler M, Schmid S, Fries D, Ströhle M. Hemoadsorption with CytoSorb in septic shock reduces catecholamine requirements and in-hospital mortality: a single-center retrospective “genetic” matched analysis. Biomedicines. 2020;8:539. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines8120539.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Supady A, Weber E, Rieder M, Lother A, Niklaus T, Zahn T, Frech F, Müller S, Kuhl M, Benk C, Maier S, Trummer G, Flügler A, Krüger K, Sekandarzad A, Stachon P, Zotzmann V, Bode C, Biever PM, Staudacher D, Wengenmayer T, Graf E, Duerschmied D. Cytokine adsorption in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (CYCOV): a single centre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Jul;9(7):755–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00177-6. Epub 2021 May 14. Erratum in: Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Jul;9(7):e62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00273-3. PMID: 34000236; PMCID: PMC8121541

  54. Akil A, Ziegeler S, Reichelt J, Rehers S, Abdalla O, Semik M, Fischer S. Combined use of CytoSorb and ECMO in patients with severe pneumogenic sepsis. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2021;69:246–51. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1708479.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Huang Z, Wang SR, Yang ZL, Liu JY. Effect on extrapulmonary sepsis-induced acute lung injury by hemoperfusion with neutral microporous resin column. Ther Apher Dial. 2013;17(4):454–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-9987.2012.01083.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Kusirisin P, Noppakun K, Trongtrakul K, Vongsanim S, Suteeka Y, Ophascharoensuk V, Pongsuwan K, Narongkiatikhun P, Theerakittikul T, Apaijai N, Chattipakorn SC, Chattipakorn N, Srisawat N. Efficacy of the cytokine adsorption therapy in patients with severe COVID-19-associated pneumonia: lesson learned from a prospective observational study. Blood Purif. 2024;53(1):10–22. https://doi.org/10.1159/000534914.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Zhu G, Zhang J, Ye M, Du J, Liu C, Liu H, et al. Effect of the combination of HA380 hemoperfusion with CVVHDF on inflammatory indices and microcirculation in early septic shock. Trop J Pharm Res. 2024;23(1):183–90. https://doi.org/10.4314/tjpr.v23i1.23.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Zuccari S, Damiani E, Domizi R, Scorcella C, D’Arezzo M, Carsetti A, Pantanetti S, Vannicola S, Casarotta E, Ranghino A, Donati A, Adrario E. Changes in cytokines, haemodynamics and microcirculation in patients with sepsis/septic shock undergoing continuous renal replacement therapy and blood purification with CytoSorb. Blood Purif. 2020;49(1–2):107–13. https://doi.org/10.1159/000502540.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Duran S, Miedema D, Ergin B, Ince C. Sublingual microcirculatory evaluation of extracorporeal hemoadsorption with CytoSorb® in abdominal sepsis: a case report. Blood Purif. 2022;51(7):634–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000518903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Brouwer WP, Duran S, Kuijper M, Ince C. Hemoadsorption with CytoSorb shows a decreased observed versus expected 28-day all-cause mortality in ICU patients with septic shock: a propensity-score-weighted retrospective study. Crit Care. 2019;23:317. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2588-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Brouwer WP, Duran S, Ince C. Improved survival beyond 28 days up to 1 year after CytoSorb treatment for refractory septic shock: a propensity weighted retrospective survival analysis. Blood Purif. 2021;50(4–5):539–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Wendel Garcia PD, Hilty MP, Held U, Kleinert E-M, Maggiorini M. Cytokine adsorption in severe, refractory septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47:1334–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Supady A, Weber E, Rieder M, et al. Cytokine adsorption in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (CYCOV): a single centre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9(7):755–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(21)00177-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Payen DM, Guilhot J, Launey Y, Lukaszewicz AC, Kaaki M, Veber B, Pottecher J, Joannes-Boyau O, Martin-Lefevre L, Jabaudon M, Mimoz O, Coudroy R, Ferrandière M, Kipnis E, Vela C, Chevallier S, Mallat J, Robert R, ABDOMIX Group. Early use of polymyxin B hemoperfusion in patients with septic shock due to peritonitis: a multicenter randomized control trial. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(6):975–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3751-z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Dellinger RP, Bagshaw SM, Antonelli M, Foster DM, Klein DJ, Marshall JC, Palevsky PM, Weisberg LS, Schorr CA, Trzeciak S, et al. Effect of targeted polymyxin B hemoperfusion on 28-day mortality in patients with septic shock and elevated endotoxin level: the EUPHRATES randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320:1455–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Bottari G. Unravelling the secret of re-balancing homeostasis in sepsis: give a look at the evidences! Int J Artif Organs. 2022;45(7):595–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/03913988221092461.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Klein DJ, Foster D, Walker PM, Bagshaw SM, Mekonnen H, Antonelli M. Polymyxin B hemoperfusion in endotoxemic septic shock patients without extreme endotoxemia: a post hoc analysis of the EUPHRATES trial. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(12):2205–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Combes A, Hajage D, Capellier G, Demoule A, Lavoué S, Guervilly C, Da Silva D, Zafrani L, Tirot P, Veber B, Maury E, Levy B, Cohen Y, Richard C, Kalfon P, Bouadma L, Mehdaoui H, Beduneau G, Lebreton G, Brochard L, Ferguson ND, Fan E, Slutsky AS, Brodie D, Mercat A, EOLIA, Trial Group, REVA, ECMONet. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(21):1965–75. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1800385.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Finfer S, Bellomo R, Boyce N, French J, Myburgh J, Norton R, SAFE Study Investigators. A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(22):2247–56. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa040232.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Asfar P, Meziani F, Hamel JF, Grelon F, Megarbane B, Anguel N, Mira JP, Dequin PF, Gergaud S, Weiss N, Legay F, Le Tulzo Y, Conrad M, Robert R, Gonzalez F, Guitton C, Tamion F, Tonnelier JM, Guezennec P, Van Der Linden T, Vieillard-Baron A, Mariotte E, Pradel G, Lesieur O, Ricard JD, Hervé F, du Cheyron D, Guerin C, Mercat A, Teboul JL, Radermacher P, SEPSISPAM Investigators. High versus low blood-pressure target in patients with septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(17):1583–93. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1312173.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Holst LB, Haase N, Wetterslev J, Wernerman J, Guttormsen AB, Karlsson S, Johansson PI, Aneman A, Vang ML, Winding R, Nebrich L, Nibro HL, Rasmussen BS, Lauridsen JR, Nielsen JS, Oldner A, Pettilä V, Cronhjort MB, Andersen LH, Pedersen UG, Reiter N, Wiis J, White JO, Russell L, Thornberg KJ, Hjortrup PB, Müller RG, Møller MH, Steensen M, Tjäder I, Kilsand K, Odeberg-Wernerman S, Sjøbø B, Bundgaard H, Thyø MA, Lodahl D, Mærkedahl R, Albeck C, Illum D, Kruse M, Winkel P, Perner A, TRISS Trial Group, Scandinavian Critical Care Trials Group. Lower versus higher hemoglobin threshold for transfusion in septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(15):1381–91. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1406617.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Gordon AC, Mason AJ, Thirunavukkarasu N, Perkins GD, Cecconi M, Cepkova M, Pogson DG, Aya HD, Anjum A, Frazier GJ, Santhakumaran S, Ashby D, Brett SJ, VANISH Investigators. Effect of early vasopressin vs norepinephrine on kidney failure in patients with septic shock: the VANISH randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316(5):509–18. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.10485.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Schmidt H, et al. Oxygen targets in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:1467–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Kjaergaard J, et al. Blood-pressure targets in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2022;387:1456–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Pappalardo F, Cardinale A, D’Ettore N, et al. Blood purification in critically ill patients: not enough, but still helpful. Crit Care. 2023;27:357. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04638-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Mitzner S, Kogelmann K, Ince C, Molnár Z, Ferrer R, Nierhaus A. Adjunctive hemoadsorption therapy with CytoSorb in patients with septic/vasoplegic shock: a best practice consensus statement. J Clin Med. 2023;12(23):7199. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12237199.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Mikaeili H, Taghizadieh A, Nazemiyeh M, Rezaeifar P, Zununi Vahed S, Safiri S, Ardalan M, Ansarin K. The early start of hemoperfusion decreases the mortality rate among severe COVID-19 patients: a preliminary study. Hemodial Int. 2022;26(2):176–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/hdi.12982.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Becker S, Lang H, Vollmer Barbosa C, Tian Z, Melk A, Schmidt BMW. Efficacy of CytoSorb®: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2023;27(1):215. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04492-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Saldaña-Gastulo JJC, Llamas-Barbarán MDR, Coronel-Chucos LG, Hurtado-Roca Y. Cytokine hemoadsorption with CytoSorb® in patients with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Sci. 2023;35(2):217–25. https://doi.org/10.5935/2965-2774.20230289-en.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Heymann M, Schorer R, Putzu A. The effect of CytoSorb on inflammatory markers in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care Med. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006007.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Zhou F, Peng Z, Murugan R, Kellum JA. Blood purification and mortality in sepsis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(9):2209–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31828cf412.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Putzu A, Schorer R, Lopez-Delgado JC, Cassina T, Landoni G. Blood purification and mortality in sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Anesthesiology. 2019;131(3):580–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000002820.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Chen JJ, Lai PC, Lee TH, Huang YT. Blood purification for adult patients with severe infection or sepsis/septic shock: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care Med. 2023;51(12):1777–89. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000005991.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  84. Zarbock A, Nadim MK, Pickkers P, Gomez H, Bell S, Joannidis M, Kashani K, Koyner JL, Pannu N, Meersch M, Reis T, Rimmelé T, Bagshaw SM, Bellomo R, Cantaluppi V, Deep A, De Rosa S, Perez-Fernandez X, Husain-Syed F, Kane-Gill SL, Kelly Y, Mehta RL, Murray PT, Ostermann M, Prowle J, Ricci Z, See EJ, Schneider A, Soranno DE, Tolwani A, Villa G, Ronco C, Forni LG. Sepsis-associated acute kidney injury: consensus report of the 28th Acute Disease Quality Initiative workgroup. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2023;19(6):401–17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41581-023-00683-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Hawchar F, Tomescu D, Träger K, Joskowiak D, Kogelmann K, Soukup J, Friesecke S, Jacob D, Gummert J, Faltlhauser A, Aucella F, van Tellingen M, Malbrain MLNG, Bogdanski R, Weiss G, Herbrich A, Utzolino S, Nierhaus A, Baumann A, Hartjes A, Henzler D, Grigoryev E, Fritz H, Bach F, Schröder S, Weyland A, Gottschaldt U, Menzel M, Zachariae O, Novak R, Berden J, Haake H, Quintel M, Kloesel S, Kortgen A, Stecher S, Torti P, Nestler F, Nitsch M, Olboeter D, Muck P, Findeisen M, Bitzinger D, Kraßler J, Benad M, Schott M, Schumacher U, Molnar Z, Brunkhorst FM. Hemoadsorption in the critically ill-final results of the international CytoSorb registry. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(10):e0274315. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274315.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Gattinoni L, Tonetti T, Quintel M. Improved survival in critically ill patients: are large RCTs more useful than personalized medicine? We are not sure. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(11):1781–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4471-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Vincent JL. Current sepsis therapeutics. EBioMedicine. 2022;86:104318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104318.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Gotch FA, Sargent JA. A mechanistic analysis of the National Cooperative Dialysis Study (NCDS). Kidney Int. 1985;28(3):526–34. https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.1985.160.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Schultz P, Schwier E, Eickmeyer C, Henzler D, Köhler T. High-dose CytoSorb hemoadsorption is associated with improved survival in patients with septic shock: a retrospective cohort study. J Crit Care. 2021;64:184–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2021.04.011.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Bottari G, Guzzo I, Cappoli A, Labbadia R, Perdichizzi S, Serpe C, Creteur J, Cecchetti C, Taccone FS. Impact of CytoSorb and CKRT on hemodynamics in pediatric patients with septic shock: the PedCyto study. Front Pediatr. 2023;15(11):1259384. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2023.1259384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Gao Q, Chen J, Zhao C, Li J, Song A, Zhang Z, Lin X, Dong S, Xin M, Hou J, Han M, Li X, Yang X, Jin Y, Zhang Y. Combination of plasma exchange and adsorption versus plasma exchange in pediatric acute liver failure: a multicenter cohort study. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2023;76(6):710–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0000000000003759.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Kogelmann K, Hübner T, Schwameis F, Drüner M, Scheller M, Jarczak D. First evaluation of a new dynamic scoring system intended to support prescription of adjuvant CytoSorb hemoadsorption therapy in patients with septic shock. J Clin Med. 2021;10(13):2939. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10132939.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Ronco C, Chawla L, Husain-Syed F, Kellum JA. Rationale for sequential extracorporeal therapy (SET) in sepsis. Crit Care. 2023;27(1):50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04310-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Kogelmann K, Jarczak D, Scheller M, Drüner M. Hemoadsorption by CytoSorb in septic patients: a case series. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1662-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Forni LG. Blood purification studies in the ICU: What endpoints should we use? Blood Purif. 2022;51(12):990–6. https://doi.org/10.1159/000523761.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Vincent JL. Improved survival in critically ill patients: are large RCTs more useful than personalized medicine? No Intensive Care Med. 2016;42(11):1778–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4482-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Damiani E, Carsetti A, Casarotta E, Domizi R, Scorcella C, Donati A, Adrario E. Microcirculation-guided resuscitation in sepsis: the next frontier? Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;5(10):1212321. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2023.1212321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Ince C, Boerma EC, Cecconi M, De Backer D, Shapiro NI, Duranteau J, Pinsky MR, Artigas A, Teboul JL, Reiss IKM, Aldecoa C, Hutchings SD, Donati A, Maggiorini M, Taccone FS, Hernandez G, Payen D, Tibboel D, Martin DS, Zarbock A, Monnet X, Dubin A, Bakker J, Vincent JL, Scheeren TWL, Cardiovascular Dynamics Section of the ESICM. Second consensus on the assessment of sublingual microcirculation in critically ill patients: results from a task force of the European Society of intensive care medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(3):281–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5070-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Bottari G, Goffredo BM, Marano M, Maccarrone C, Simeoli R, Bianco G, Vallesi L, Beetham JCC, Mazzeo AT, Cappoli A, Cairoli S, Labbadia R, Cecchetti C, Bernaschi P, Corsetti T, Morabito S, Taccone FS, Guzzo I. Impact of continuous kidney replacement therapy and hemoadsorption with CytoSorb on antimicrobial drug removal in critically ill children with septic shock: a single-center prospective study on a pediatric cohort. Antibiotics. 2023;12(9):1395. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12091395.PMID:37760692;PMCID:PMC10525765.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. Pistolesi V, Morabito S, Di Mario F, Regolisti G, Cantarelli C, Fiaccadori E. A guide to understanding antimicrobial drug dosing in critically ill patients on renal replacement therapy. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2019;63:e00583-e619. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00583-19.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not Applicable

Funding

No funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital, IRCCS, Piazzale Sant’Onofrio 65, Rome, Italy

    Gabriella Bottari

  2. Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Ionian Area (DiMePRe-J), University Aldo Moro Bari, Bari, Italy

    Vito Marco Ranieri

  3. Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Policlinico Bari, Bari, Italy

    Vito Marco Ranieri

  4. Laboratory of Translational Intensive Care, Department of Intensive Care, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Can Ince

  5. Fondazione IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy

    Antonio Pesenti

  6. Nephrology and Dialysis Unit, Casa Solievo Della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo, Foggia, Italy

    Filippo Aucella

  7. IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy

    Anna Maria Scandroglio

  8. International Renal Research Institute Vicenza, IRRIV, Vicenza, Italy

    Claudio Ronco

  9. Department of Intensive Care, Erasme University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

    Jean-Louis Vincent

Authors
  1. Gabriella Bottari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vito Marco Ranieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Can Ince
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Antonio Pesenti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Filippo Aucella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anna Maria Scandroglio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Claudio Ronco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jean-Louis Vincent
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GB and VMR conceptualized the manuscript. CI, AP, FA, AMS, CR, JLV reviewed the manuscript giving a substantial contribution to the final version. All the authors have approved the submitted version (and any substantially modified version). All authors read and approved the final manuscript

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriella Bottari.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not Applicable.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

Professor Jean Louis Vincent is a journal editor. The others authors declare that they have no competing interests

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bottari, G., Ranieri, V.M., Ince, C. et al. Use of extracorporeal blood purification therapies in sepsis: the current paradigm, available evidence, and future perspectives. Crit Care 28, 432 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05220-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05220-7

Keywords

Critical Care

ISSN: 1364-8535