RECCAS, REMOVE, and SIRAKI02: discrepant outcomes and a potential explanation

Abstract

We read with interest the RECCAS trial by Hohn et al., investigating intraoperative hemoadsorption (HA) with CytoSorb during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in patients over 65 years undergoing elective on-pump cardiac surgery. In this randomized controlled trial (RCT), patients were assigned to either intraoperative HA or standard care. The primary outcome was the difference in mean interleukin (IL)-6 serum concentrations upon ICU admission, while secondary outcomes included various clinical and biochemical endpoints. The authors reported no significant differences in cytokine levels, organ dysfunction, ICU/hospital lengths of stay, or mortality between groups [1]. As HA is less effective in CPB without significant inflammation [2], we turned to the REMOVE trial, which assessed CytoSorb in patients undergoing cardiac surgery for infective endocarditis (IE). This RCT used the change in SOFA score (ΔSOFA) as the primary outcome, comparing the total postoperative score (up to day 9) with the baseline. REMOVE found no significant reduction in postoperative organ dysfunction with HA [2].

In contrast, the SIRAKI02 trial evaluated extracorporeal blood purification (BP) with oXiris for cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury (CSA-AKI). Among 343 patients (mean age 69 years, 119 female), BP significantly reduced CSA-AKI rates (28.4% vs. 39.7%; P = 0.03) with an adjusted difference of 10.4% (P = 0.01). The benefits were particularly notable in patients with chronic kidney disease, diabetes, hypertension, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (< 40%), and lower BMI (< 30). However, no significant differences were observed in most secondary or exploratory endpoints [3].

The divergent results between RECCAS, REMOVE, and SIRAKI02 may be explained by differences in adsorption mechanisms. While CytoSorb targets cytokines, oXiris also removes endotoxins, which play a critical role in the inflammatory cascade [4]. One study found elevated endotoxin levels in 73% of patients with CPB > 90 min, compared to 36% with CPB < 90 min [5]. Both RECCAS and SIRAKI02 included patients with prolonged CPB, but only SIRAKI02 demonstrated efficacy. This suggests that endotoxin removal is crucial in addressing the "endotoxin storm" that precedes the cytokine storm. Without effective endotoxin control, as seen in RECCAS, cytokine levels may continue to rise post-surgery, undermining the potential benefits of CytoSorb. These findings emphasize the need for comprehensive strategies targeting both endotoxins and cytokines to improve outcomes in CPB-associated inflammation.

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

1. Hohn A, Malewicz-Oeck NM, Buchwald D, Annecke T, Zahn PK, Baumann A. REmoval of cytokines during CArdiac surgery (RECCAS): a randomised controlled trial. Crit Care. 2024;28(1):406. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05175-9.

   Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

2. Diab M, Lehmann T, Bothe W, et al. REMOVE Trial Investigators*. Cytokine Hemoadsorption During Cardiac Surgery Versus Standard Surgical Care for Infective Endocarditis (REMOVE): Results From a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Circulation. 2022; 145(13):959–968. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.056940

3. Pérez-Fernández X, Ulsamer A, Cámara-Rosell M, et al. SIRAKI02 Study Group. Extracorporeal Blood Purification and Acute Kidney Injury in Cardiac Surgery: The SIRAKI02 Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2024; 332(17):1446–1454. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.20630

4. Honore PM, Blackman S, Perriens E, et al. Adsorptive therapies in sepsis and inflammation: description of the various adsorptive techniques and their failure to improve outcomes. Rev Invest Clin. 2023;75(6):359–76. https://doi.org/10.24875/RIC.23000185.

   Article PubMed Google Scholar

5. Adamik B, Kübler A, Gozdzik A, Gozdzik W. Prolonged cardiopulmonary bypass is a risk factor for intestinal ischaemic damage and endotoxaemia. Heart Lung Circ. 2017;26(7):717–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2016.10.012.

   Article PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

None.

None.

Authors and Affiliations

1. ICU Department, UCLouvain Medical School, CHU UCL Godinne Namur, Avenue G Thérasse 1, 5530, Yvoir, Belgium

   Patrick M. Honore

2. CHIREC Hospital, ULB University, Brussels, Belgium

   Sydney Blackman

3. Acute Therapies Greater China, Baxter International Inc., Shanghai, 200031, China

   Min-Min Wang

Authors

1. Patrick M. HonoreView author publications

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

2. Sydney BlackmanView author publications

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

3. Min-Min WangView author publications

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PMH & MMW designed the paper. PMH,EP & MMW participated in drafting and reviewing. PMH,EP, & MMW read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrick M. Honore.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publications

Not applicable.

Competing interests

MMW declare to have competing interests. PMH,SB,EP & MMW declare to have no competing interests.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

Cite this article

Honore, P.M., Blackman, S. & Wang, MM. RECCAS, REMOVE, and SIRAKI02: discrepant outcomes and a potential explanation. Crit Care 29, 16 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05236-z

Download citation

• Received: 21 December 2024

• Accepted: 23 December 2024

• Published: 08 January 2025

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05236-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Copy to clipboard

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

• Cardiac surgery
• Hemoadsorption
• Sepsis
• Endocarditis
• Prolonged bypass time
• Endotoxin
• oXiris