scholarly journals Therapeutic plasma exchange as rescue therapy in severe sepsis and septic shock: retrospective observational single-centre study of 23 patients

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johannes Hadem ◽  
Carsten Hafer ◽  
Andrea S Schneider ◽  
Olaf Wiesner ◽  
Gernot Beutel ◽  
...  
GastroHep ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (6) ◽  
pp. 311-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego Burgos‐Santamaría ◽  
Adrian G. McNicholl ◽  
Javier P. Gisbert

2007 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 346-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. P. GISBERT ◽  
J.-L. GISBERT ◽  
S. MARCOS ◽  
I. JIMENEZ-ALONSO ◽  
R. MORENO-OTERO ◽  
...  

Medicina ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (7) ◽  
pp. 350
Author(s):  
Fatih Aygün ◽  
Fatih Varol ◽  
Cansu Durak ◽  
Mey Talip Petmezci ◽  
Alper Kacar ◽  
...  

Background and objective: Severe sepsis and septic shock are life-threatening organ dysfunctions and causes of death in critically ill patients. The therapeutic goal of the management of sepsis is restoring balance to the immune system and fluid balance. Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is recommended in septic patients, and it may improve outcomes in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) is another extracorporeal procedure that can improve organ function by decreasing inflammatory and anti-fibrinolytic mediators and correcting haemostasis by replenishing anticoagulant proteins. However, research about sepsis and CRRT and TPE in children has been insufficient and incomplete. Therefore, we investigated the reliability and efficacy of extracorporeal therapies in paediatric patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. Materials and methods: We performed a multicentre retrospective study using data from all patients aged <18 years who were admitted to two paediatric intensive care units. Demographic data and reason for hospitalization were recorded. In addition, vital signs, haemogram parameters, and biochemistry results were recorded at 0 h and after 24 h of CRRT. Patients were compared according to whether they underwent CRRT or TPE; mortality between the two treatment groups was also compared. Results: Between January 2014 and April 2019, 168 septic patients were enrolled in the present study. Of them, 47 (27.9%) patients underwent CRRT and 24 underwent TPE. In patients with severe sepsis, the requirement for CRRT was statistically associated with mortality (p < 0.001). In contrast, the requirement for TPE was not associated with mortality (p = 0.124). Conclusion: Our findings revealed that the requirement for CRRT in patients with severe sepsis is predictive of increased mortality. CRRT and TPE can be useful techniques in critically ill children with severe sepsis. However, our results did not show a decrease of mortality with CRRT and TPE.


MedPharmRes ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 27-32
Author(s):  
Bien Le ◽  
Dai Huynh ◽  
Mai Tuan ◽  
Minh Phan ◽  
Thao Pham ◽  
...  

Objectives: to evaluate the fluid responsiveness according to fluid bolus triggers and their combination in severe sepsis and septic shock. Design: observational study. Patients and Methods: patients with severe sepsis and septic shock who already received fluid after rescue phase of resuscitation. Fluid bolus (FB) was prescribed upon perceived hypovolemic manifestations: low central venous pressure (CVP), low blood pressure, tachycardia, low urine output (UOP), hyperlactatemia. FB was performed by Ringer lactate 500 ml/30 min and responsiveness was defined by increasing in stroke volume (SV) ≥15%. Results: 84 patients were enrolled, among them 30 responded to FB (35.7%). Demographic and hemodynamic profile before fluid bolus were similar between responders and non-responders, except CVP was lower in responders (7.3 ± 3.4 mmHg vs 9.2 ± 3.6 mmHg) (p 0.018). Fluid response in low CVP, low blood pressure, tachycardia, low UOP, hyperlactatemia were 48.6%, 47.4%, 38.5%, 37.0%, 36.8% making the odd ratio (OR) of these triggers were 2.81 (1.09-7.27), 1.60 (0.54-4.78), 1.89 (0.58-6.18), 1.15 (0.41-3.27) and 1.27 (0.46-3.53) respectively. Although CVP < 8 mmHg had a higher response rate, the association was not consistent at lower cut-offs. The combination of these triggers appeared to raise fluid response but did not reach statistical significance: 26.7% (1 trigger), 31.0% (2 triggers), 35.7% (3 triggers), 55.6% (4 triggers), 100% (5 triggers). Conclusions: fluid responsiveness was low in optimization phase of resuscitation. No fluid bolus trigger was superior to the others in term of providing a higher responsiveness, their combination did not improve fluid responsiveness as well.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document