Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Apr 1;34(2):113-118.
doi: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000953.

Hemadsorption

Salvatore Lucio Cutuli  1 , Domenico Luca Grieco  1 , Gennaro De Pascale  1   2 , Massimo Antonelli  1   2
Affiliations
Review

Hemadsorption

Salvatore Lucio Cutuli et al. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. .

Abstract

Purpose of review: To review pathophysiological pathways of immune system response to infections, which may justify mediators removal by extracorporeal blood purification therapies (EBPTs) in critically ill septic patients. Moreover, we presented an overview of the EBPTs mostly used in clinical practice with the aim to modulate immune system dysfunction in sepsis.

Recent findings: Sepsis is a life-threatening disease and recent findings showed that its pathophysiology relies on dysregulated immune system response to pathogen invasion of the body. In the light of this view, EBPTs have been demonstrated effective to remove specific mediators and foster balance between pro- and anti-inflammatory pathways.

Summary: EBPTs have been widely used in clinical practice, with the aim to modulate immune system dysfunction by the removal of pathogens and inflammatory mediators in critically ill patients with sepsis. Such therapies are characterised by specific structural features, which allow selective and nonselective removal of mediators by adsorption. However, few evidences support their role in the management of critically ill patients with sepsis. Accordingly, an evidence-based and personalized approach to EBPTs in sepsis is strongly advocated, in order to solve controversies in this field and optimise the management of critically ill septic patients.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Rhodes A, Evans L, Alhazzani W, et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: international guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med 2017; 43:304–377.
    1. Rhee C, Klompas M. Sepsis trends: increasing incidence and decreasing mortality, or changing denominator? J Thorac Dis 2020; 12: (Suppl 1): S89–S100.
    1. Rudd K, Johnson S, Agesa K, et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 2020; 395:200–211.
    1. Cutuli S, De Pascale G, Antonelli M. ‘σeeacgrψιζ’ yesterday, sepsis nowadays: what's changing? J Thorac Dis 2017; 9:E166–E167.
    1. Laffey J, Kavanagh B. Negative trials in critical care: why most research is probably wrong. Lancet Respir Med 2018; 6:659–660.