4.2 Article

Evaluation of the effects of pulse high-volume hemofiltration in patients with severe sepsis: A preliminary study

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL ORGANS
Volume 33, Issue 8, Pages 505-511

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/039139881003300801

Keywords

Pulse high-volume hemofiltration; Sepsis; Cytokines

Funding

  1. Shaanxi province, PR China [S2009K18-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of pulse high-volume hemofiltration (PHVHF) in patients with severe sepsis. Methods: Twenty-two patients with severe sepsis admitted to XiJing hospital between January 2009 and January 2010 were included in the present study. Patients were randomly divided into the control group (conventional treatment) and the PHVHF group. Patients in the PHVHF group received 72 h of PHVHF treatment in addition to conventional treatment after admission. PHVHF was conducted as follows: HVHF 85 ml/kg per hour for 6 h followed by continuous venovenous hemofiltration 35 ml/kg per hour for 18 h with an AN69 membrane. The hemofilter was replaced every 24 h and PHVHF was performed with 250 to 300 ml/min blood flow rate. The blood samples were taken to measure the changes of plasma cytokines (TNF-alpha, IL-1, IL-4, IL-6 and IL-10). Results: With 72 h of PHVHF treatment, there was an improvement in clinical features and hemodynamics variables in PHVHF-treated patients. All plasma cytokines after PHVHF treatment were significantly lower than those at the start of PHVHF treatment (p < 0.05). In contrast, there was no significant change in control patients. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that PHVHF is a feasible adjuvant modality in the treatment of patients with severe sepsis. With the application of PHVHF treatment, plasma cytokines are effectively removed. Considering the lower cost and better feasibility than continuous high-volume hemofiltration (CHVF), PHVHF shows promising prospects for the future.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available