From the Division of Anesthesiology, Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology, Intensive Care, and Emergency Medicine, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland (A.P., R.S.) the Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, Intensive Care Department, and the Biomedical Investigation Institute of Bellvitge, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain (J.C.L.-D.) the Department of Cardiovascular Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Cardiocentro Ticino, Lugano, Switzerland (T.C.) the Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy (G.L.) Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy (G.L.).
Anesthesiology. 2019 Sep;131(3):580-593. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002820.
Sepsis and septic shock are severe inflammatory conditions related to high morbidity and mortality. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized trials to assess whether extracorporeal blood purification reduces mortality in this setting.
Electronic databases were searched for pertinent studies up to January 2019. We included randomized controlled trials on the use of hemoperfusion, hemofiltration without a renal replacement purpose, and plasmapheresis as a blood purification technique in comparison to conventional therapy in adult patients with sepsis and septic shock. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up available. We calculated relative risks and 95% CIs. The grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation methodology for the certainty of evidence was used.
Thirty-seven trials with 2,499 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Hemoperfusion was associated with lower mortality compared to conventional therapy (relative risk = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.98], P = 0.02, very low certainty evidence). Low risk of bias trials on polymyxin B immobilized filter hemoperfusion showed no mortality difference versus control (relative risk = 1.14 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.36], P = 0.12, moderate certainty evidence), while recent trials found an increased mortality (relative risk = 1.22 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.45], P = 0.02, low certainty evidence); trials performed in the United States and Europe had no significant difference in mortality (relative risk = 1.13 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.34], P = 0.15), while trials performed in Asia had a positive treatment effect (relative risk = 0.57 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.69], P < 0.001). Hemofiltration (relative risk = 0.79 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.00], P = 0.05, very low certainty evidence) and plasmapheresis (relative risk = 0.63 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.96], P = 0.03, very low certainty evidence) were associated with a lower mortality.
Very low-quality randomized evidence demonstrates that the use of hemoperfusion, hemofiltration, or plasmapheresis may reduce mortality in sepsis or septic shock. Existing evidence of moderate quality and certainty does not provide any support for a difference in mortality using polymyxin B hemoperfusion. Further high-quality randomized trials are needed before systematic implementation of these therapies in clinical practice.
脓毒症和脓毒性休克是与高发病率和死亡率相关的严重炎症状态。我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估体外血液净化是否能降低这种情况下的死亡率。
电子数据库检索了截至 2019 年 1 月的相关研究。我们纳入了关于血液灌流、无肾脏替代目的的血液滤过和血浆置换作为血液净化技术与常规治疗比较在成人脓毒症和脓毒性休克患者中的随机对照试验。主要结局为最长随访时间的死亡率。我们计算了相对风险和 95%CI。使用推荐评估、制定和评估方法学(Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation,GRADE)评估证据的确定性。
荟萃分析纳入了 37 项试验共 2499 名患者。与常规治疗相比,血液灌流降低了死亡率(相对风险=0.88 [95%CI,0.78 至 0.98],P=0.02,极低确定性证据)。在多粘菌素 B 固定化血液灌流的低偏倚风险试验中,与对照组相比,死亡率没有差异(相对风险=1.14 [95%CI,0.96 至 1.36],P=0.12,中等确定性证据),而最近的试验发现死亡率增加(相对风险=1.22 [95%CI,1.03 至 1.45],P=0.02,低确定性证据);在美国和欧洲进行的试验死亡率没有显著差异(相对风险=1.13 [95%CI,0.96 至 1.34],P=0.15),而在亚洲进行的试验则有积极的治疗效果(相对风险=0.57 [95%CI,0.47 至 0.69],P<0.001)。血液滤过(相对风险=0.79 [95%CI,0.63 至 1.00],P=0.05,极低确定性证据)和血浆置换(相对风险=0.63 [95%CI,0.42 至 0.96],P=0.03,极低确定性证据)与死亡率降低相关。
极低质量的随机证据表明,血液灌流、血液滤过或血浆置换的使用可能降低脓毒症或脓毒性休克患者的死亡率。现有中等质量和确定性的证据并不支持多粘菌素 B 血液灌流在死亡率方面有差异。在将这些治疗方法系统地应用于临床实践之前,还需要进行高质量的随机试验。