Effect of Extracorporeal Blood Purification on Mortality in Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

Author:

Snow Timothy A.C.ORCID,Littlewood Shona,Corredor Carlos,Singer Mervyn,Arulkumaran Nishkantha

Abstract

<b><i>Objective:</i></b> The objective of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine whether mortality benefit exists for extracorporeal blood purification techniques in sepsis. <b><i>Data Sources:</i></b> A systematic search on MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs was performed. <b><i>Study Selection:</i></b> RCTs investigating the effect of extracorporeal blood purification device use on mortality among critically ill septic patients were selected. <b><i>Data Extraction:</i></b> Mortality was assessed using Mantel-Haenszel models, and <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> was used for heterogeneity. Data are presented as odds ratios (OR); 95% confidence intervals (CIs); <i>p</i> values; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup>. Using the control event mortality proportion, we performed a TSA and calculated the required information size using an anticipated intervention effect of a 14% relative reduction in mortality. <b><i>Data Synthesis:</i></b> Thirty-nine RCTs were identified, with 2,729 patients. Fourteen studies used hemofiltration (<i>n</i> = 789), 17 used endotoxin adsorption devices (<i>n</i> = 1,363), 3 used nonspecific adsorption (<i>n</i> = 110), 2 were cytokine removal devices (<i>n</i> = 117), 2 used coupled plasma filtration adsorption (CPFA) (<i>n</i> = 207), 2 combined hemofiltration and perfusion (<i>n</i> = 40), and 1 used plasma exchange (<i>n</i> = 106). On conventional meta-analysis, hemofiltration (OR 0.56 [0.40–0.79]; <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%), endotoxin removal devices (OR 0.40 [0.23–0.67], <i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 71%), and nonspecific adsorption devices (OR 0.32 [0.13–0.82]; <i>p</i> = 0.02; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 23%) were associated with mortality benefit, but not cytokine removal (OR 0.99 [0.07–13.42], <i>p</i> = 0.99; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 64%), CPFA (OR 0.50 [0.10–2.47]; <i>p</i> = 0.40; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 64%), or combined hemofiltration and adsorption (OR 0.71 [0.13–3.79]; <i>p</i> = 0.69; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%). TSA however revealed that based on the number of existing patients recruited for RCTs, neither hemofiltration (TSA-adjusted CI 0.29–1.10), endotoxin removal devices (CI 0.05–3.40), nor nonspecific adsorption devices (CI 0.01–14.31) were associated with mortality benefit. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> There are inadequate data at present to conclude that the use of extracorporeal blood purification techniques in sepsis is beneficial. Further adequately powered RCTs are required to confirm any potential mortality benefit, which may be most evident in patients at greatest risk of death.

Publisher

S. Karger AG

Subject

Nephrology,Hematology,General Medicine

Reference64 articles.

1. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315(8):801–10.

2. Rajaee A, Barnett R, Cheadle WG. Pathogen- and danger-associated molecular patterns and the cytokine response in sepsis. Surg Infect. 2018;19(2):107–16.

3. 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.

4. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.

5. Brok J, Thorlund K, Wetterslev J, Gluud C. Apparently conclusive meta-analyses may be inconclusive: trial sequential analysis adjustment of random error risk due to repetitive testing of accumulating data in apparently conclusive neonatal meta-analyses. Int J Epidemiol. 2009;38(1):287–98.

Cited by 29 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3