THE EFFECT OF HEMOPERFUSION WITH RESIN HEMOABSORPTION (HA330) IN SEPSIS PATIENTS
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effect of hemoperfusion with a resin membrane (HA330) in the treatment of sepsis patients. Methods: An intervention study with a retrospective control group of 2 groups of sepsis patients treated with standard treatments according to SSC in both groups combined with hemoperfusion (HA330) in the intervention group at Phu Tho Provincial General Hospital, between January 2022 and December 2022. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality during ICU stay and at 28 days. Secondary outcomes are ICU stay, hospital stay, and changes in SOFA, APACHE II, and inflammatory marker scores between the 2 groups. Results: 86 patients included in the study were divided into 2 groups, the Hemoperfusion group (N = 46). There was no difference between the 2 groups in mortality at 28 days and ICU mortality (p > 0.05). The Hemoperfusion group (HP) had a hospital stay of 13.8 ± 0.5 days and an ICU stay of 5.3 ± 0.4 days, lower than the Control group by 16.5 ± 0.6 and 6.2 ± 0.2, respectively, with p < 0.05. The HP group had an APACHE II score on day 1 (7.4 ± 0.9); day 3 (5.2 ± 1), SOFA day 1 (4.0 ± 0.5), day 3 (3.4 ± 0.8), PCT on day 1 (9.9 ± 1.7), and day 3 (3.8 ± 0.8) were lower than the control group with indexes of 9.8 ± 1, 6.9 ± 1, 6 ± 0.6, 5.3 ± 1.1, 21.9 ± 2.03, and 18.9 ± 3.1, respectively, with p < 0.05. In the HP group, the pre-HP indices of urea (6.8 ± 0.6), creatinine (109.4 ± 8.3), GOT (45.4 ± 4.2), GPT (50.8 ± 4.4), and platelets (227.2 ± 13.3) were higher than the post-HP group with the corresponding indices: 6.4 ± 0.7; 101.8 ± 8.6; 43.0 ± 4.1; 43.5 ± 4.5; 175.8 ± 10.9, respectively, with p < 0.05. Conclusion: There was no difference in ICU and 28-day mortality between the 2 groups. The hemodialysis group was effective in improving ICU and hospital length of stay, as well as reducing APACHE II and SOFA scores at day 1 and day 3 after admission.
Article Details
Keywords
Hemoperfusion, Sepsis, HA330, Septic Shock
References


2. Angus DC, van der Poll T. Severe sepsis and septicshock. NEnglJMed369 (9): 840–851. Published online 2013.

3. Cinel I, Dellinger RP. Advances in pathogenesis and management of sepsis. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2007;20(4):345-352.

4. Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). Jama. 2016;315(8):801-810.

5. Hotchkiss RS, Opal SM. Immunotherapy for sepsis: a new approach against an ancient foe. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(1):87.

6. Nedeva C, Menassa J, Puthalakath H. Sepsis: inflammation is a necessary evil. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2019; 7: 108. Published online 2019.

7. Zhou F, Peng Z, Murugan R, Kellum JA. Blood purification and mortality in sepsis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(9):2209.

8. Shum HP, Yan WW, Chan DTM. Extracorporeal blood purification for sepsis. Hong Kong Med J. Published online 2016.

9. Erkurt MA, Sarici A, Özer AB, et al. The effect of HA330 hemoperfusion adsorbent method on inflammatory markers and end-organ damage levels in sepsis: a retrospective single center study. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2022;26(21):8112-8117. doi:10.26355/eurrev_202211_30165


10. Huang Z, Wang S rong, Yang Z li, Liu J yun. Effect on Extrapulmonary Sepsis-Induced Acute Lung Injury by Hemoperfusion With Neutral Microporous Resin Column: Effect of Hemoperfusion on Sepsis. Ther Apher Dial. 2013;17(4):454-461. doi:10.1111/j.1744-9987.2012.01083.x

