Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Critical Care
Published in: Critical Care 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research

High-volume hemofiltration in adult burn patients with septic shock and acute kidney injury: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Authors: Kevin K. Chung, Elsa C. Coates, David J. Smith Jr, Rachel A. Karlnoski, William L. Hickerson, Angela L. Arnold-Ross, Michael J. Mosier, Marcia Halerz, Amy M. Sprague, Robert F. Mullins, Daniel M. Caruso, Marlene Albrecht, Brett D. Arnoldo, Agnes M. Burris, Sandra L. Taylor, Steven E. Wolf, for the Randomized controlled Evaluation of high-volume hemofiltration in adult burn patients with Septic shoCk and acUte kidnEy injury (RESCUE) Investigators

Published in: Critical Care | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Sepsis and septic shock occur commonly in severe burns. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is also common and often results as a consequence of sepsis. Mortality is unacceptably high in burn patients who develop AKI requiring renal replacement therapy and is presumed to be even higher when combined with septic shock. We hypothesized that high-volume hemofiltration (HVHF) as a blood purification technique would be beneficial in this population.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial to evaluate the impact of HVHF on the hemodynamic profile of burn patients with septic shock and AKI involving seven burn centers in the United States. Subjects randomized to the HVHF were prescribed a dose of 70 ml/kg/hour for 48 hours while control subjects were managed in standard fashion in accordance with local practices.

Results

During a 4-year period, a total of nine subjects were enrolled for the intervention during the ramp-in phase and 28 subjects were randomized, 14 each into the control and HVHF arms respectively. The study was terminated due to slow enrollment. Ramp-in subjects were included along with those randomized in the final analysis. Our primary endpoint, the vasopressor dependency index, decreased significantly at 48 hours compared to baseline in the HVHF group (p = 0.007) while it remained no different in the control arm. At 14 days, the multiple organ dysfunction syndrome score decreased significantly in the HVHF group when compared to the day of treatment initiation (p = 0.02). No changes in inflammatory markers were detected during the 48-hour intervention period. No significant difference in survival was detected. No differences in adverse events were noted between the groups.

Conclusions

HVHF was effective in reversing shock and improving organ function in burn patients with septic shock and AKI, and appears safe. Whether reversal of shock in these patients can improve survival is yet to be determined.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01213914. Registered 30 September 2010.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Fitzwater J, Purdue GF, Hunt JL, et al. The risk factors and time course of sepsis and organ dysfunction after burn trauma. J Trauma. 2003;54(5):959–66.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Brusselaers N, Monstrey S, Colpaert K, et al. Outcome of acute kidney injury in severe burns: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36:915–25.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Stewart IJ, Tilley MA, Cotant CL, et al. Association of AKI with adverse outcomes in burned military casualties. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012;7(2):199–206.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Gomez H, Ince C, De Backer D, et al. A unified theory of sepsis-induced acute kidney injury: inflammation, microcirculatory dysfunction, bioenergetics, and the tubular cell adaptation to injury. Shock. 2014;41:3–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Uchino S, Kellum JA, Bellomo R, et al. Acute renal failure in critically ill patients: a multinational, multicenter study. JAMA. 2005;294:813–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Chung KK, Lundy JB, Matson JR, et al. Continuous venovenous hemofiltration in severely burned patients with acute kidney injury: a cohort study. Crit Care. 2009;13:R62.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Ronco C, Bellomo R, Homel P, et al. Effects of different doses in continuous veno-venous haemofiltration on outcomes of acute renal failure: a prospective randomised trial. Lancet. 2000;356(9223):26–30.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Honore PM, Jamez J, Wauthier M, et al. Prospective evaluation of short-term, high-volume isovolemic hemofiltration on the hemodynamic course and outcome in patients with intractable circulatory failure resulting from septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2000;28(11):3581–7.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Piccinni P, Dan M, Barbacini S, et al. Early isovolaemic haemofiltration in oliguric patients with septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2006;32(1):80–6.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Ratanarat R, Brendolan A, Ricci Z, et al. Pulse high-volume hemofiltration in critically ill patients: a new approach for patients with septic shock. Semin Dial. 2006;19(1):69–74.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Azevedo LCP, Park M, Schettino GPP. Novel potential therapies for septic shock. Shock. 2008;30 Suppl 1:60–6.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Linden K, Stewart IJ, Kreyer SF, et al. Extracorporeal blood purification in burns: a review. Burns. 2014;40(6):1071–8.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Borthwick EM, Hill CJ, Rabindranath KS, et al. High-volume haemofiltration for sepsis in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;1:1–39.
15.
Joannes-Boyau O, Honore PM, Perez P, et al. High-volume versus standard-volume haemofiltration for septic shock patients with acute kidney injury (IVOIRE study): a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:1535–46.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
Seok J, Warren HS, Cuenca AG, et al. Genomic responses in mouse models poorly mimic human inflammatory diseases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110:3507–12.
18.
Greenhalgh DG, Saffle JR, Holmes JH, et al. American Burn Association consensus conference to define sepsis and infection in burns. J Burn Care Res. 2007;28(6):776–90.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Palevsky PM, Zhang JH, O’Connor TZ, et al. VA/NIH Acute Renal Failure Trial Network. Intensity of renal support in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(1):7–20.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Cruz DN, Antonelli M, Fumagalli R, et al. Early use of Polymyxin B Hemoperfusion in Abdominal Septic Shock: the EUPHAS Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. 2009;301:2445–52.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Marshall JC, Cook DJ, Christou NV, et al. Multiple organ dysfunction score: a reliable descriptor of a complex clinical outcome. Crit Care Med. 1995;23:1638–52.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Boussekey N, Chiche A, Faure K, et al. A pilot randomized study comparing high and low volume hemofiltration on vasopressor use in septic shock. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34(9):1646–53.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Bellomo R, Lipcsey M, Calzavacca P, et al. Early acid-base and blood pressure effects of continuous renal replacement therapy intensity in patients with metabolic acidosis. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:429–36.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
Nitzschke SL, Aden JK, Serio-Melvin ML, et al. Wound healing trajectories in burn patients and their impact on mortality. J Burn Care Res. 2014;35:474–9.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Kagan RJ, Peck MD, Ahrenholz DH, et al. Surgical management of the burn wound and the use of skin substitutes: an expert panel white paper. J Burn Care Res. 2014;34:e60–79.CrossRef
27.
Tamme K, Maddison L, Kruusat R, et al. Effects of high volume haemodiafiltration on inflammatory response profile and microcirculation in patients with septic shock. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:125615.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Khanna A, English SW, Wang XS, et al. Angiotensin II for the treatment of vasodilatory shock. N Eng J Med. 2017;377:419–30.CrossRef
29.
Ruiz C, Hernandez G, Godoy C, et al. Sublingual microcirculatory changes during high-volume hemofiltration in hyperdynamic septic shock patients. Crit Care. 2010;14:R170.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Clark E, Molnar A, Joannes-Boyau O, et al. High-volume hemofiltration for septic acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 2014;18:R7.
31.
Choi G, Gomersall CD, Tian Q, et al. Principles of antibacterial dosing in continuous renal replacement therapy. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:2268–82.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Bilgram I, Roberts JA, Wallis SC, et al. Meropenem dosing in critically ill patients with sepsis receiving high-volume continuous venovenous hemofiltration. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2010;54:2974–8.CrossRef
33.
Akers KS, Rowan MP, Niece KL, et al. Colistin pharmacokinetics in burn patients during continuous venovenous hemofiltration. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2015;59:46–52.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Akers KS, Cota JM, Frei CR, et al. Once-daily amikacin dosing in burn patients treated with continuous venovenous hemofiltration. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55:4639–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Terayama T, Yamakawa K, Umemura Y, et al. Polymyxin B hemoperfusion for sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Infect. 2017;18:225–33.CrossRef
36.
Rimmer E, Houston BL, Kumar A, et al. The efficacy and safety of plasma exchange in patients with sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2014;18:699.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Friesecke S, Stecher SS, Gross S, et al. Extracorporeal cytokine elimination as rescue therapy in refractory septic shock: a prospective single-center study. J Artif Organs. June 6 2017. Epub ahead of print.
38.
Vincent JL. We should abandon randomized controlled trials in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:S534–8.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Acute Kidney Injury Work Group. KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for Acute Kidney Injury. Kidney Inter. 2012;2:1–138.CrossRef
40.
Kellum JA, Gomez H, Gomez A, et al. Acute dialysis quality initiative (ADQI) XIV sepsis phenotypes and targets for blood purification in sepsis: the Bogota consensus. Shock. 2015;45:242–8.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
High-volume hemofiltration in adult burn patients with septic shock and acute kidney injury: a multicenter randomized controlled trial
Authors
Kevin K. Chung
Elsa C. Coates
David J. Smith Jr
Rachel A. Karlnoski
William L. Hickerson
Angela L. Arnold-Ross
Michael J. Mosier
Marcia Halerz
Amy M. Sprague
Robert F. Mullins
Daniel M. Caruso
Marlene Albrecht
Brett D. Arnoldo
Agnes M. Burris
Sandra L. Taylor
Steven E. Wolf
for the Randomized controlled Evaluation of high-volume hemofiltration in adult burn patients with Septic shoCk and acUte kidnEy injury (RESCUE) Investigators
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Critical Care / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1364-8535
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1878-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Critical Care 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research

Costs and expected gain in lifetime health from intensive care versus general ward care of 30,712 individual patients: a distribution-weighted cost-effectiveness analysis

Editorial

Towards precision medicine for sepsis patients

Viewpoint

Hyperglycaemia in critically ill patients: the immune system’s sweet tooth

Research

Evaluation of early antimicrobial therapy adaptation guided by the BetaLACTA® test: a case-control study

Research

Weekends affect mortality risk and chance of discharge in critically ill patients: a retrospective study in the Austrian registry for intensive care

Research

Hyperfibrinolysis in severe isolated traumatic brain injury may occur without tissue hypoperfusion: a retrospective observational multicentre study