Retrospective cohort study demonstrates high-dose haemofiltration improves cytokine clearance and SOFA scores in septic shock patients, indicating potential benefits.
Background and Objectives: The optimal effluent dose of continuous haemofiltration (CHF) when coupled to veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for septic shock is unknown. We examined our 44-patient ECMO registry, contrasting a smaller high-dose subgroup (HDHF ≥ 45 mL kg−1 h−1; n = 13) with a larger standard-dose subgroup (SDHF 25–35 mL kg−1 h−1; n = 31). The primary endpoint was 72 h change in SOFA score (ΔSOFA). Materials and Methods: All adults cannulated for ECMO (January 2018–January 2025) and started on CHF within 2 h were eligible. Variables were abstracted at baseline, 24 h and 72 h. Continuous data were analysed by Student’s t or Mann–Whitney tests, categorical data by χ2/Fisher; and paired changes by Wilcoxon. Two-sided p < 0.05 signified significance. Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable (age 49.1 ± 15.2 vs. 50.4 ± 14.9 y; APACHE II 28.4 ± 5.3 vs. 27.5 ± 5.9). Median effluent reached 48.1 mL kg−1 h−1 (IQR 46.6–49.7) in HDHF and 29.7 mL kg−1 h−1 (27.5–31.9) in SDHF (p < 0.001). IL-6 fell by 1 061 ± 487 pg mL−1 with HDHF versus 637 ± 425 pg mL−1 with SDHF (p = 0.003). Mean arterial pressure rose 19.2 ± 8.1 vs. 12.7 ± 8.3 mmHg (p = 0.03), and norepinephrine declined 0.46 ± 0.22 vs. 0.30 ± 0.19 µg kg−1 min−1 (p = 0.04). ΔSOFA at 72 h was –4.4 ± 2.1 with HDHF and –2.6 ± 2.3 with SDHF (p = 0.01). Twenty-eight-day mortality was 38.5% (5/13) versus 45.2% (14/31), p = 0.64. Effluent dose correlated with ΔIL-6 (ρ = 0.53, p < 0.001) and ΔSOFA (ρ = 0.45, p = 0.003). Conclusions: In this ECMO cohort, high-dose haemofiltration, although applied in only 13 patients, appeared to achieve greater cytokine clearance, faster haemodynamic recovery and deeper early organ-failure improvement than standard dosing, without excess bleeding. Survival advantage was not demonstrable, underscoring the need for prospective randomised confirmation of the dose–response signal.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Barbura et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: