Objective To study the clinical protective effect of hemoperfusion combined with hemofiltration on inflammatory reaction of hyperlipidemia severe acute pancreatitis (HLSAP). Methods Thirty-seven patients with HLSAP treated between January 2012 and December 2014 were selected and divided into three groups based on different treatments. Thirteen patients were allocated into hemoperfusion combined with continuous veno-venous hemofiltration group (HP+CVVH group) and treated with hemoperfusion combined with hemofiltration; 11 patients were allocated into continuous veno-venous hemofiltration group (CVVH group) and treated with hemofiltration; and all the other patients were allocated into control group and treated with conventional treatment. The levels of blood triglyceride, C-reactive protein, tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8) and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE)Ⅱ score of the patients after treatment were observed. The hospital stay, organ dysfunction rate and mortality of the patients were measured. Results Compared with the control group, the levels of blood triglyceride, C-reactive protein, TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8 and APACHE Ⅱ score of the patients in the HP+CVVH group and CVVH group were both significantly reduced 72 hours after therapy (P<0.05). However, the levels of blood triglyceride, C-reactive protein, TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8 and APACHE Ⅱ score of the patients in the HP+CVVH group were significantly lower than those in the CVVH group at the same time point (P<0.05). The hospital stay of the patients in the HP+CVVH group and CVVH group was significantly shorter than that in the control group (P<0.05). Compared with the CVVH group, the hospital stay of patients in the HP+CVVH group was significantly shorter (P<0.05). There was no statistical difference in organ dysfunction rate and mortality among the three groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Hemoperfusion combined with hemofiltration is an effective method for HLSAP by cleaning the inflammatory mediators availably and inhibiting the excessive inflammatory reaction.
Objective To investigate the therapeutic effect of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) plus hemoperfusion (HP) on patients with diabetes and uremic encephalopathy. Methods Fifty-five patients with diabetes and uremic encephalopathy from January 2010 to December 2017 were retrospectively collected in this study and divided into CRRT plus HP (CRRT+HP) group (n=28) and hemodialysis (HD) plus HP (HD+HP) group (n=27). The changes of vital signs, related biochemical indicators before and after treatment and curative effects were compared between the two groups. Results The two groups were comparable in general. No significant differences were found in blood pressure or heart rate before and after treatment between the two groups (P>0.05). The incidence of hypotension events in CRRT+HP group was significantly lower than that in HD+HP group (P<0.05), and the effective rate of cardiac function improvement in CRRT+HP group was significantly higher than that in HD+HP group (P<0.05). After treatment, the blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, parathyroid hormone, β2-microglobulin, phosphorus, C-reactive protein and brain natriuretic peptide in the two groups were significantly decreased than those before treatment (P<0.05). Parathyroid hormone, β2-microglobulin, C-reactive protein and brain natriuretic peptide were significantly decreased in CRRT+HP group as compared with those in HD+HP group (P<0.05). The remission rate of uremic encephalopathy in CRRT+HP group was significantly higher than that in HD+HP group (P<0.05). Conclusions As compared with HD+HP pattern, CRRT+HP pattern is more stable in the hemodynamics, and more effective in the improvement of heart failure and the clearance of inflammatory mediators, middle molecular and macromolecular substances associated with uremic encephalopathy. CRRT+HP pattern is suitable for the treatment of patients with diabetes and uremic encephalopathy.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of polymyxin B hemoperfusion on the prognosis of patients with sepsis and septic shock by meta-analysis.MethodsSupplemented by manual search and document traceability, the US National Library of Medicine Pubmed, the Dutch Medical Abstracts Embase database, and the Cochrane clinical trial database were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were collected from January 1998 to October 2018 for the treatment of sepsis and septic shock with polymyxin B hemoperfusion, only limited to English publications. The collected RCTs were evaluated and the prognosis of patients with sepsis and septic shock was analyzed by the Cochrane Collaboration.ResultsFinally six RCTs were included, and a total of 926 patients were analyzed, with 471 patients in the polymyxin B hemoperfusion group and 455 patients in the control group. The mortality rate was 36.3% (171/471) in the polymyxin B hemoperfusion group and 39.1% (178/455) in the control group. Hemoperfusion with polymyxin B could not reduce the patient mortality (RR=0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15, P=0.233). A subgroup analysis was taken on the patients with moderate to severe septic shock. Four RCTs were included in total and 418 patients were analyzed, with 207 patients in the polymyxin B hemoperfusion group and 211 in the control group. The mortality rate was 38.65% (80/207) in the polymyxin B hemoperfusion group and 50.71% (107/211) in the control group were. The hemoperfusion of polymyxin B could significantly reduce the mortality of patients with moderate to severe septic shock (RR=0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96, P=0.025).ConclusionsOlymyxin B hemoperfusion can not improve the prognosis of patients with sepsis and septic shock. However, compared with conventional treatment, polymyxin B hemoperfusion can improve the 28-day mortality rate of patients of severe septic shock. Due to the limit number of randomized controlled trials, more high-quality trials are needed to a further confirmation.
Objective To explore the clinical effect of hemoperfusion (HP) in cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) on postoperative inflammation in patients with acute type A aortic dissection (AAD). MethodsAdult patients with AAD who planned to undergo total aortic arch replacement from July 2020 to November 2021 were continuously enrolled in our heart center. Patients were randomly divided into a HP group and a control (C) group. The HP group was treated with disposable HP device (Model: HA380, Zhuhai Jafron Biomedical, China) in CPB during the operation. ResultsFinally, 70 patients were included with 59 males and 11 females at an age range of 21-67 years. There were 35 patients in both groups. In this study, 3 patients died within 3 days after surgery, 2 in the HP group and 1 in the C group, and the remaining 67 patients survived to the follow-up end point (30 days after surgery). There was no statistical difference in preoperative baseline data, operative method, CPB time, block time, or other intraoperative data between the two groups. Blood product dosage, intubation time, hospital stays, and hospitalization expenses were similar between the two groups. Intraoperative hemoglobin (82.70±2.31 g/L vs. 82.50±1.75 g/L, P=0.954] and platelet concentration [(77.87±7.99)×109/L vs. (89.17±9.99)×109/L, P=0.384] were not statistically different between the HP group and C group. In the HP group, postoperative (ICU-12 h) interleukin-6 (IL-6) [338.14 (128.00, 450.70) pg/mL vs. 435.75 (180.50, 537.00) pg/mL, P=0.373], IL-8 [35.04 (18.02, 40.35) pg/mL vs. 43.50 (17.70, 59.95) pg/mL, P=0.383], and IL-10 [21.19 (6.46, 23.50) pg/mL vs. 43.41 (6.34, 50.80) pg/mL, P=0.537] were slightly lower than those in the C group, and the difference was not statistically different. The incidences of pulmonary infection (0.00% vs. 11.76%, P=0.042) and liver injury (2.94% vs. 20.58%, P=0.027) in the HP group were significantly lower than those in the C group, and the incidence of other postoperative complications, such as arrhythmia, nervous system complications and urinary system complications, showed no statistical difference between the two groups. Conclusion HP therapy in CPB is safe, but its effect on reducing postoperative inflammatory factors, postoperative inflammatory reactions and postoperative complications in the patients with AAD is limited, and it may be of application value to some high-risk patients with lung and liver injury.