+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Is There a Future for Adsorption Techniques in Sepsis?

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          During sepsis toxins released from, e.g., bacteria induce reactions of various cascade systems that may cause progression of the patient into septic shock, disseminated intravascular coagulation, multiorgan dysfunction syndrome and subsequent death. The use of conventional treatments using antibiotics, fluid substitution, inotropic drugs, respiration aid and dialysis is not enough to reverse the serious prognosis. The addition of various other drugs such as antibodies against various cytokines and cytokine receptors, pentoxiphylline, immunoglobulins or high doses of steroids is usually without benefit for the prognosis of the patient. Another possibility to reduce the extent of toxins and other harmful compounds in the circulation is the use of apheresis (removal by technical devices). This can be done either in a nonselective way (plasma exchange, plasmapheresis) or more selectively using various adsorbers such as polymyxin B. The survival in studies varies between 50 and 80%. Besides the use of nonselective apheresis, the development of various selective adsorption techniques may be one approach to improve survival of these severely ill patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Reversal of late septic shock with supraphysiologic doses of hydrocortisone.

          Preliminary studies have suggested that low doses of corticosteroids might rapidly improve hemodynamics in late septic shock treated with catecholamines. We examined the effect of hydrocortisone on shock reversal, hemodynamics, and survival in this particular setting. Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Two intensive care units of a University hospital. Forty-one patients with septic shock requiring catecholamine for >48 hrs. Patients were randomly assigned either hydrocortisone (100 mg i.v. three times daily for 5 days) or matching placebo. Reversal of shock was defined by a stable systolic arterial pressure (>90 mm Hg) for > or =24 hrs without catecholamine or fluid infusion. Of the 22 hydrocortisone-treated patients and 19 placebo-treated patients, 15 (68%) and 4 (21%) achieved 7-day shock reversal, respectively, a difference of 47% (95% confidence interval 17% to 77%; p = .007). Serial invasive hemodynamic measurements for 5 days did not show significant differences between both groups. At 28-day follow-up, reversal of shock was higher in the hydrocortisone group (p = .005). Crude 28-day mortality was 7 (32%) of 22 treated patients and 12 (63%) of 19 placebo patients, a difference of 31% (95% confidence interval 1% to 61%; p = .091). Shock reversal within 7 days after the onset of corticosteroid therapy was a very strong predictor of survival. There were no significant differences in outcome in responders and nonresponders to a short corticotropin test. The respective rates of gastrointestinal bleeding and secondary infections did not differ between both groups. Administration of modest doses of hydrocortisone in the setting of pressor-dependent septic shock for a mean of >96 hrs resulted in a significant improvement in hemodynamics and a beneficial effect on survival. These beneficial effects do not appear related to adrenocortical insufficiency.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prognostic stratification in critically ill patients with acute renal failure requiring dialysis.

            Despite the widespread availability of dialytic and intensive care unit technology, the probability of early mortality in critically ill persons with acute renal failure is distressingly high. Previous efforts to predict outcome in this population have been limited by small sample size and the absence of uniform exclusion criteria. Additionally, data obtained decades ago may not apply today owing to changes in case mix. The medical records of 132 consecutive patients in the intensive care unit with acute renal failure who required dialysis from 1991 through 1993 were evaluated by a blinded reviewer. The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 70%. Twelve readily available historical, clinical, and laboratory variables were significantly associated with in-hospital mortality. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that mechanical ventilation, malignancy, and nonrespiratory organ system failure were independently associated with in-hospital mortality. Using a 95% positivity criterion, this model identified 24% of high-risk patients who died, without misclassification of any survivors. Of those who survived to hospital discharge, 33% were dialysis dependent and 28% were institutionalized long-term. Among critically ill patients, acute renal failure requiring dialysis is an ominous condition with a high risk of in-hospital mortality. This risk appears to depend largely on comorbid conditions, such as the need for mechanical ventilation and underlying malignancy. While this prognostic model requires prospective validation, it appears to identify a substantial fraction of patients for whom dialysis may be of limited or no benefit.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Acute renal failure in intensive care units--Causes, outcome, and prognostic factors of hospital mortality


                Author and article information

                Blood Purif
                Blood Purification
                S. Karger AG
                03 August 2000
                : 18
                : 2
                : 149-155
                Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Umeå, Sweden
                14440 Blood Purif 2000;18:149–155
                © 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Tables: 5, References: 74, Pages: 7
                Self URI (application/pdf):
                Minireview – Adsorption Technologies


                Comment on this article