Sorbents therapies in burn patients with septic shock on continuous kidney replacement therapy: an added value for a selected population

Abstract

We read with great interest the review addressing the issue of the use of extracorporeal blood purification therapies in sepsis [1]. We congratulate the authors for their excellent work. There are issues that we want to highlight and comment on.

The authors highlighted the extreme difficulty in demonstrating the effectiveness of these therapies in large randomized studies, with mortality as the primary end-point. Practical experience teaches that in critically ill patients the effectiveness, in terms of survival, of some therapeutic approaches with great clinical impact (volume filling, the use of diuretics, extracorporeal replacement treatment, and so on) can be very different from patient to patient, resulting in the same treatment being beneficial to one patient, and not beneficial, or even deleterious for another patient. Treatment must be directed at targets tailored for the individual patient, not at common target values that may be appropriate for some but certainly not for all [2].

Among these therapies, the potential benefits of coupled-plasma filtration adsorption (CPFA) were first documented in patients with Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) on Continuous Kidney Replacement Therapy (CKRT) [1] and later confirmed in a cohort of burn ICU patients undergoing CKRT [3]. A significant reduction in mortality was observed in the group of 39 burn patients treated with CKRT-CPFA, compared to the group of 87 patients treated with CKRT alone (51.3% and 77.1%, respectively). Then, the next Compact-2 study, which compared patients with septic shock treated with CKRT-CPFA (CPFA-CKRT group) as an adjunctive therapy and patients who did not receive it (control group), could not confirm the benefit. The study was prematurely stopped because of a suspected excess of early mortality in the CPFA-treated group, particularly present in the CPFA-CKRT group among patients without renal failure, who would not have required per se the renal replacement therapy [1]. As an explanation of these surprising results, it has been hypothesized that extracorporeal therapy could eliminate a significant portion of antibiotics, particularly when an absorptive component was associated with it. Concerning a life-saving antibiotic such as colistin, during CPFA-CKRT plasma perfusion was very efficient in removing the drug, as the post-cartridge colistin concentration was not detectable [3, 4]. Therefore, CPFA could be harmful to subject a patient with septic shock but good renal function. Because of CPFA-CKRT doubling the purifying function some substances such as antibiotic therapy at standard dosage could be eliminated at an excessive rate [1, 4].

Nowadays CytoSorb® is one of the most promising sorbent therapy currently available for septic shock. Recently it has been documented that in burn patients on CKRT with septic shock, and poorly responsive to therapy, an additive CytoSorb® treatment was associated with an improvement in clinical outcome and reduced in-hospital mortality in comparison with subjects treated with CKRT alone [5]. The application of CytoSorb® took place in a very dispersed way over the time of admission. Out of 11 patients, 7 started the CKRT together with the sorbent application, and 2 patients needed repetitive cycles, with additional treatments. Cytosorb® was tailored to the clinical condition of every single patient, applying a repetitive cycle of treatment following several septic shock episodes.

It is conceivable that the sorbent technologies acting as a rescue therapy were able to overcome the microvascular derangement related to septic shock, it reaches stabilization of patient hemodynamics, and so time was gained for the other crucial interventions for burn patient's survival such as surgery and antibiotics [5].

As already underlined, the selection of patients and the time of intervention may be crucial for demonstrating the efficacy and clinical impact of a new treatment option in ICU patients [2]. In this scenario, burn patients are a particular population, in which the initial injury is defined in its pathophysiological characteristics, and quantifiable in its severity, probability of sepsis, and death. In large trials involving generic ICU patients, these conditions are lacking, many potential confounding factors can influence the result, such as the use in unselected patient populations, variability in demographic characteristics, comorbidities, use of medication, time since disease onset, source of the infection, or duration of therapy.

As in the past likely occurred, the introduction of innovative therapies in ICU patients led to "throwing the baby out with the bath water". Judiciously applying these new therapies in very controlled conditions and selected populations may be the only correct way forward.

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

CPFA:

Coupled-plasma filtration adsorption

AKI:

Acute kidney injury

CKRT:

Continuous kidney replacement therapy

1. Bottari G, Ranieri VM, Ince C, Pesenti A, Aucella F, Scandroglio AM, Ronco C, Vincent JL. Use of extracorporeal blood purification therapies in sepsis: the current paradigm, available evidence, and future perspectives. Crit Care. 2024;28(1):432. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05220-7.

   Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

2. Vincent JL. Recent negative clinical trials in septic patients: maybe a good thing? Minerva Anestesiol. 2015;81(2):122–4.

   PubMed Google Scholar

3. Mariano F, Hollo’ Z, Depetris N, Malvasio V, Mella A, Bergamo D, Pensa A, Berardino M, Stella M, Biancone L. Coupled-plasma filtration and adsorption for severe burn patients with septic shock and acute kidney injury treated with renal replacement therapy. Burns. 2020;46(1):190–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2019.05.017.

   Article PubMed Google Scholar

4. Mariano F, Leporati M, Carignano P, Stella M, Vincenti M, Biancone L. Efficient removal of colistin A and B in critically ill patients undergoing CVVHDF and sorbent technologies. J Nephrol. 2015;28(5):623–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-014-0143-3.

   Article PubMed Google Scholar

5. Mariano F, Greco’ D, Depetris N, Mella A, Sciarrillo A, Stella M, Berardino M, Risso D, Gambino R, Biancone L. CytoSorb® in burn patients with septic shock and acute kidney injury on continuous kidney replacement therapy is associated with improved clinical outcome and survival. Burns. 2024;50(5):1213–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burns.2024.02.028.

   Article PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Not applicable.

This work was supported by the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MIUR, ex 60%, Rilo 2024 to FM). The authors declare no financial interest.

Authors and Affiliations

1. Nephrology, Dialysis and Transplantation U, AOU City of Health and Science, CTO Hospital, Via G. Zuretti 29, 10126, Turin, Italy

   Filippo Mariano, Alberto Mella & Luigi Biancone

2. Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Corso AM Dogliotti, 10126, Turin, Italy

   Filippo Mariano, Alberto Mella, Domenico Greco’ & Luigi Biancone

Authors

1. Filippo MarianoView author publications

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

2. Alberto MellaView author publications

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

3. Domenico Greco’View author publications

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

4. Luigi BianconeView author publications

   You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

F.M., A.M and D.G wrote the main manuscript text. F.M. and L.B. reviewed the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Filippo Mariano.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All authors give the consent to publish.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

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

Mariano, F., Mella, A., Greco’, D. et al. Sorbents therapies in burn patients with septic shock on continuous kidney replacement therapy: an added value for a selected population. Crit Care 29, 46 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05284-z

Download citation

• Received: 14 January 2025

• Accepted: 16 January 2025

• Published: 27 January 2025

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-025-05284-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