The role of extracorporeal blood purification in correcting intoxication markers in septic shock: a prospective interventional controlled study

Introduction. The use of extracorporeal blood purification (EBP) in septic shock (SS) complicated by acute kidney injury (AKI) remains a con troversial topic.

The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of EBP methods in patients with abdominal SS complicated by AKI.

Materials and methods. Group 1 included 34 patients who received continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) as emergency therapy. Group 2 consisted of 35 patients who underwent early isolated CVVHDF. Group 3 comprised 32 patients who received early combined EBP (selec tive plasma filtration + CVVHDF).

Results. Combined EBP from day 1 to day 5 of therapy demonstrated a reduction in C-reactive protein from 223.5 to 140.9 mg/L (p = 0.001; −37.1%) compared to group 2 (219.7 to 179.2 mg/L; p = 0.004; −18.4%) and group 1 (214.5 to 189.3 mg/L; p = 0.772; −11.7%), as well as a decrease in interleukin-6 from 242.8 to 70.3 pg/mL (p = 0.001; −71.1%) vs. group 2 (233.7 to 123.4 pg/mL; p = 0.003; −47.2%) and group 1 (247.4 to 184.3 pg/mL; p = 0.512; −25.5%). Tumor necrosis factor levels decreased from 20.1 to 4.6 pg/mL (p = 0.001; −77.1%) in group 3, while group 2 showed a reduction from 19.4 to 11.9 pg/mL (p = 0.001; −38.7%) and group 1 exhibited minimal change (21.4 to 20.5 pg/mL; p = 0.525; −4.2%). Cystatin-C levels in group 3 decreased from 1.45 to 0.85 µg/mL (p = 0.048; −41.4%), whereas group 2 showed a slight reduction (1.6 to 1.5 µg/mL; p = 0.997; −6.3%) and group 1 demonstrated an increase (1.5 to 1.9 µg/mL; p = 0.027; +22.7%).

Conclusions. Combined EBP significantly reduces inflammatory markers and improves kidney function compared to isolated renal replacement therapy, both in the early and delayed periods.

1. Bovkun I. V., Gavrilova E. G., Sokolov D. V., Shlyk I. V. experience of using selec tive LPS-sorbtion in the combined therapy of those suffering from gram-negative sepsis. Messenger of anesthesiology and resuscitation, 2017, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 68–73. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21292/2078-5658-2017-14-3-68-73.

2. Kirov M. Y., Kuzkov V. V., Protsenko D. N. et al. Septic shock in adults: guide lines of the All-Russian public organization “Federation of Anes thesiologists and Reanimatologists”. Annals of Critical Care, 2023, vol. 4, pp. 7–42. http://doi.org/10.21320/1818-474X-2023-4-7-42. (In Russ.).

3. Malakhova M. Ya. Endogenous intoxication as a reflection of compensa tory restructuring of metabolic processes in the body. Efferent therapy, 2000, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 3–14. (In Russ.).

4. Masolitin S. V., Protsenko D. N., Tyurin I. N. et al. Dynamics of markers of systemic endotoxicosis in patients with gram-negative septic shock during the use of early combined extracorporal detoxification: a prospective multi centric study. Messenger of anesthesiology and resuscitation, 2024, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 35–45. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.24884/2078-5658-2024-21-1-35-45.

5. Polushin Yu. S., Sokolov D. V. Kidney dysfunction in critically ill patients. Messenger of anesthesiology and resuscitation, 2018, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 54–64. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21292/2078-5658-2018-15-5-54-64.

6. Polushin Yu. S., Аkmalova R. V., Sokolov D. V. et al. Changes in the levels of some cytokines when using blood purification in COVID-19 patients. Mes senger of anesthesiology and resuscitation, 2021, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 31–39. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21292/2078-5658-2021-18-2-31-39.

7. Sokolov A. A., Rey S. I., Aleksandrova I. V. et al. Comparison of selec tive plasma exchange and plasmadialfiltration with MARS and Pro metheus systems in the treatment of liver failure. Messenger of anesthesiol ogy and resuscitation, 2020, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 39–52. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21292/2078-5658-2020-17-3-39-52.

8. Andonovic M., Shemilt R., Sim M. et al. Timing of renal replacement therapy for patients with acute kidney injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis // J Intensive Care Soc. – 2021. – Vol. 22, № 1. – P. 67–77. http://doi.org/10.1177/1751143720901688.

9. Barrios E. L., Balzano-Nogueira L., Polcz V. E. et al. Unique lymphocyte transcriptomic profiles in septic patients with chronic critical illness // Front Immunol. – 2024. – Vol. 15. – 1478471. http://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2024.1478471.

10. Bottari G., Ranieri V. M., Ince C. et al. Use of extracorporeal blood purification therapies in sepsis: the current paradigm, available evidence, and future perspectives // Crit Care. – 2024. – Vol. 28, № 1. – P. 432. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-05220-7.

11. Brandes-Leibovitz R., Riza A., Yankovitz G. et al. Sepsis pathogenesis and outcome are shaped by the balance between the transcriptional states of systemic inflammation and antimicrobial response // Cell Rep Med. – 2024. – Vol. 5, № 11. – 101829. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2024.101829.

12. Chen W. Y., Cai L. H., Zhang Z. H. et al. The timing of continuous renal replacement therapy initiation in sepsis-associated acute kidney injury in the intensive care unit: the CRTSAKI Study (Continuous RRT Timing in Sepsis-associated AKI in ICU): study protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial // BMJ Open. – 2021. – Vol. 11, № 2. – e040718. http://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040718.

13. Chiscano-Camón L., Ruiz-Sanmartin A., Bajaña I. et al. Current perspectives in the management of sepsis and septic shock // Front Med (Lausanne). – 2024. – Vol. 11. – 1431791. http://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1431791.

14. Cove M. E., MacLaren G., Brodie D. et al. Optimising the timing of renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury // Crit Care. – 2021. – Vol. 25, № 1. – P. 184. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03614-5.

15. De Rosa S., Marengo M., Fiorentino M. et al. Extracorporeal blood purification therapies for sepsis-associated acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: expert opinion from the SIAARTI-SIN joint commission // J Nephrol. – 2023. – Vol. 36, № 7. – P. 1731–1742. http://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-023-01637-5.

16. Gaudry S., Hajage D., Martin-Lefevre L. et al. Comparison of two delayed strategies for renal replacement therapy initiation for severe acute kidney injury (AKIKI 2): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial // Lancet. – 2021. – Vol. 397, № 10281. – P. 1293–1300. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00350-0.

17. Hayashi M., Ohmori S., Kawai Y. et al. Endothelial GATA3 is involved in coagulofibrinolytic homeostasis during endotoxin sepsis // Exp Anim. – 2025. – Vol. 74, № 1. – P. 104–113. http://doi.org/10.1538/expanim.24-0079.

18. Hernandez G. N., Francis A. J. et al. Enhancing survival in septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of plasma exchange therapy // Cureus. – 2024. – Vol. 16, № 5. – e60947. http://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.60947.

19. Inker L. A., Eneanya N. D., Coresh J. et al. New creatinine- and cystatin c-based equations to estimate gfr without race // N Engl J Med. – 2021. – Vol. 385, № 19. – P. 1737–1749. http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2102953.

20. Khwaja A. KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury // Nephron Clin Pract. – 2012. – Vol. 120, № 4. – P. 179–184. http://doi.org/10.1159/000339789.

21. Kuklin V., Sovershaev M., Bjerner J. et al. Influence of therapeutic plasma exchange treatment on short-term mortality of critically ill adult patients with sepsis-induced organ dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis // Crit Care. – 2024. – Vol. 28, № 1. – P. 12. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04795-x.

22. La Via L., Sangiorgio G., Stefani S. et al. The global burden of sepsis and septic shock. Epidemiologia (Basel). – 2024. – Vol. 5, № 3. – P. 456–478. http://doi.org/10.3390/epidemiologia5030032.

23. Li X., Liu C., Mao Z. et al. Timing of renal replacement therapy initiation for acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis // Crit Care. – 2021. – Vol. 25, № 1. – P. 15. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03451-y.

24. Lodge S., Litton E., Gray N. et al. Stratification of sepsis patients on admission into the intensive care unit according to differential plasma metabolic phenotypes // J Proteome Res. – 2024. – Vol. 23, № 4. – P. 1328–1340. http://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jproteome.3c00803.

25. Oudemans-van Straaten H. M. Citrate anticoagulation for continuous renal replacement therapy in the critically ill // Blood Purif. – 2010. – Vol. 29, № 2. – P. 191–196. http://doi.org/10.1159/000245646.

26. Pan H. C., Chen Y. Y., Tsai I. J. et al. Accelerated versus standard initiation of renal replacement therapy for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCT studies // Crit Care. – 2021. – Vol. 25, № 1. – P. 5. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03434-z.

27. Rehn M., Chew M. S., Olkkola K. T. et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock in adults 2021 – endorsement by the Scandinavian society of anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine // Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. – 2022. – Vol. 66, № 5. – P. 634–635. http://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14045.

28. Rudd K. E., Johnson S. C., Agesa K. M. et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990-2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study // Lancet. – 2020. – Vol. 395, № 10219. – P. 200–211. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32989-7.

29. Santacroce E., D’Angerio M., Ciobanu A. L. et al. Advances and challenges in sepsis management: modern tools and future directions // Cells. – 2024. – Vol. 13, № 5. – P. 439. http://doi.org/10.3390/cells13050439.

30. Shankar-Hari M., Phillips G. S., Levy M. L. et al. developing a new definition and assessing new clinical criteria for septic shock: for the third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3) // JAMA. – 2016. – Vol. 315, № 8. – P. 775–787. http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0289.

31. Singer M., Deutschman C.S., Seymour C.W. et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3) // JAMA. – 2016. – Vol. 315, № 8. – P. 801–810. http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0287.

32. Somaili M. Early versus delayed strategies for renal replacement therapy initiation in adult patients with severe acute kidney injury complicating septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis // Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. – 2022. – Vol. 33, № 3. – P. 449–486. http://doi.org/10.4103/1319-2442.385969.

33. Stahl K., Wand P., Seeliger B. et al. Clinical and biochemical endpoints and predictors of response to plasma exchange in septic shock: results from a randomized controlled trial // Crit Care. – 2022. – Vol. 26, № 1. – P. 134. http://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-022-04003-2.

34. STARRT-AKI Investigators; Canadian Critical Care Trials Group; Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group; Timing of Initiation of Renal-Replacement therapy in acute kidney injury // N Engl J Med. – 2020. – Vol. 383, № 3. – P. 240–251. http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2000741.

35. Wang Q., Liu F., Tao W. et al. Timing of renal replacement therapy in patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis // Aust Crit Care. – 2024. – Vol. 37, № 2. – P. 369–379. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aucc.2023.06.011.

36. Wu M., Mi B., Liu L. et al. Genetic polymorphisms, biomarkers and signaling pathways associated with septic shock: from diagnosis to therapeutic targets // Burns Trauma. – 2024. – Vol. 12. Published 2024 May 6. http://doi.org/10.1093/burnst/tkae006.

37. Zarbock A., Kellum J. A., Schmidt C. et al. Effect of early vs delayed initiation of renal replacement therapy on mortality in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: the ELAIN Randomized Clinical Trial // JAMA. – 2016. – Vol. 315, № 20. – P. 2190–2199. http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.5828.