↓ Skip to main content

The efficacy and safety of plasma exchange in patients with sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
153 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 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
The efficacy and safety of plasma exchange in patients with sepsis and septic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0699-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily Rimmer, Brett L Houston, Anand Kumar, Ahmed M Abou-Setta, Carol Friesen, John C Marshall, Gail Rock, Alexis F Turgeon, Deborah J Cook, Donald S Houston, Ryan Zarychanski

Abstract

IntroductionSepsis and septic shock are leading causes of intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. They are characterized by excessive inflammation, upregulation of procoagulant proteins and depletion of natural anticoagulants. Plasma exchange has the potential to improve survival in sepsis by removing inflammatory cytokines and restoring deficient plasma proteins. The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of plasma exchange in patients with sepsis.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus, reference lists of relevant articles, and grey literature for relevant citations. We included randomized controlled trials comparing plasma exchange or plasma filtration with usual care in critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock. Two reviewers independently identified trials, extracted trial-level data and performed risk of bias assessments using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality reported at longest follow-up. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.ResultsOf 1,957 records identified, we included four unique trials enrolling a total of 194 patients (one enrolling adults only, two enrolling children only, one trial enrolling adults and children). The mean age of adult patients ranged from 38 to 53 years (n = 128) and the mean age of children ranged from 0.9 to 18 years (n = 66). All trials were at unclear to high risk of bias. The use of plasma exchange was not associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 1.52, I2 60%). In adults, plasma exchange was associated with reduced mortality (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.96; I2 0%), but was not in children (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.38; I2 60%). None of the trials reported ICU or hospital lengths of stay. Only one trial reported adverse events associated with plasma exchange including six episodes of hypotension and one allergic reaction to fresh frozen plasma.ConclusionsInsufficient evidence exists to recommend plasma exchange as an adjunctive therapy for patients with sepsis or septic shock. Rigorous randomized controlled trials evaluating clinically relevant patient-centered outcomes are required to evaluate the impact of plasma exchange in this condition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 139 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 21%
Other 25 17%
Student > Master 9 6%
Student > Bachelor 9 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 6%
Other 32 22%
Unknown 30 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 32 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 02 December 2021.
All research outputs
#2,107,843
of 25,703,943 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,868
of 6,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,874
of 361,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#19
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,703,943 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,603 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 361,985 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.