| Title |
Clinical review: Blood purification for sepsis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, February 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc9411 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Rimmelé, John A Kellum |
| Abstract |
Sepsis is the primary cause of death in the intensive care unit. Extracorporeal blood purification therapies have been proposed for patients with sepsis in order to improve outcomes since these therapies can alter the host inflammatory response by non-selective removal of inflammatory mediators or bacterial products or both. Recent technological progress has increased the number of techniques available for blood purification and their performance. In this overview, we report on the latest advances in blood purification for sepsis and how they relate to current concepts of disease, and we review the current evidence for high-volume hemofiltration, cascade hemofiltration, hemoadsorption, coupled plasma filtration adsorption, high-adsorption hemofiltration, and high-cutoff hemofiltration/hemodialysis. Promising results have been reported with all of these blood purification therapies, showing that they are well tolerated, effective in clearing inflammatory mediators or bacterial toxins (or both) from the plasma, and efficacious for improvement of various physiologic outcomes (for example, hemodynamics and oxygenation). However, numerous questions, including the timing, duration, and frequency of these therapies in the clinical setting, remain unanswered. Large multicenter trials evaluating the ability of these therapies to improve clinical outcomes (that is, mortality or organ failure), rather than surrogate markers such as plasma mediator clearance or transient improvement in physiologic variables, are required to define the precise role of blood purification in the management of sepsis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 4 | 2% |
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| Chile | 2 | 1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Hungary | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 176 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 33 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 8% |
| Other | 50 | 26% |
| Unknown | 32 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 108 | 57% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 7% |
| Engineering | 11 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 8% |
| Unknown | 34 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2022.
All research outputs
#4,352,837
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,096
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,732
of 118,278 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#19
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 118,278 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.