↓ Skip to main content

In vitro comparison of the adsorption of inflammatory mediators by blood purification devices

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
190 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
In vitro comparison of the adsorption of inflammatory mediators by blood purification devices
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine Experimental, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40635-018-0177-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benjamin Malard, Corine Lambert, John A. Kellum

Abstract

Septic shock, a leading cause of acute kidney injury, induces release of pro-/anti-inflammatory mediators, leading to increased mortality and poor renal recovery. This is the first in vitro study directly comparing three single-use blood purification devices in terms of removing sepsis-associated mediators and endotoxins. In vitro hemoperfusion was performed using oXiris®, CytoSorb®, and Toraymyxin®. Heparinized human plasma from healthy volunteers was pre-incubated with pathologic quantities of inflammatory mediators and filtered in a closed-loop circulation model for 2 h. For each device, the removal of 27 inflammatory mediators was measured over time. Endotoxin removal mediated by oXiris and Toraymyxin was assessed using hemoperfusion over 6 h. Endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide) removal was most rapid with Toraymyxin; mean adsorptive clearance over the first 30 min was ~ 20 ml/min vs ~ 8 ml/min with oXiris (p < 0.05). There was minimal endotoxin removal with CytoSorb (1 ml/min). At 120 min, there was no significant difference between the endotoxin removal rates using oXiris (mean ± standard deviation, 68.0 ± 4.4%) and Toraymyxin (83.4 ± 3.8%); both were significantly higher vs CytoSorb (- 6.3 ± 4.9%; p < 0.05). Total removal with oXiris was 6.9 μg vs 9.7 μg for Toraymyxin, where the total lipopolysaccharide quantity introduced was approximately 15.8 μg. Removal rates of pro-/anti-inflammatory cytokines and other inflammatory mediators were similar between oXiris and CytoSorb and were higher with CytoSorb and oXiris vs Toraymyxin. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor was only effectively adsorbed by CytoSorb (99.4%). Differences were detected between the adsorption mechanism of the devices; binding to oXiris was mainly ionic, while CytoSorb was hydrophobic. No specific protein adsorption was found qualitatively with Toraymyxin. Adsorption rate kinetics varied for individual inflammatory mediators using the three blood purification devices. Mechanisms of adsorption differed between the devices. oXiris was the only device tested that showed both endotoxin and cytokine removal. oXiris showed similar endotoxin adsorption to Toraymyxin and similar adsorption to CytoSorb for the removal of other inflammatory mediators. Differences in device removal capacities could enable treatment to be more tailored to patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 12%
Other 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 25 21%
Unknown 38 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 49%
Engineering 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 2%
Chemical Engineering 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 41 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 06 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,233,443
of 24,460,744 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#153
of 499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,556
of 331,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine Experimental
#5
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,460,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 331,256 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.