IMPORTANCE Polymyxin B hemoperfusion reduces blood endotoxin levels in sepsis. Endotoxin activity can be measured in blood with a rapid assay. Treating patients with septic shock and elevated endotoxin activity using polymyxin B hemoperfusion may improve clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE To test whether adding polymyxin B hemoperfusion to conventional medical therapy improves survival compared with conventional therapy alone among patients with septic shock and high endotoxin activity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter, randomized clinical trial involving 450 adult critically ill patients with septic shock and an endotoxin activity assay level of 0.60 or higher enrolled between September 2010 and June 2016 at 55 tertiary hospitals in North America. Last follow-up was June 2017. INTERVENTIONS Two polymyxin B hemoperfusion treatments (90-120 minutes) plus standard therapy completed within 24 hours of enrollment (n = 224 patients) or sham hemoperfusion plus standard therapy (n = 226 patients). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was mortality at 28 days among all patients randomized (all participants) and among patients randomized with a multiple organ dysfunction score (MODS) of more than 9. RESULTS Among 450 eligible enrolled patients (mean age, 59.8 years; 177 [39.3%] women; mean APACHE II score 29.4 [range, 0-71 with higher scores indicating greater severity), 449 (99.8%) completed the study. Polymyxin B hemoperfusion was not associated with a significant difference in mortality at 28 days among all participants (treatment group, 84 of 223 [37.7%] vs sham group 78 of 226 [34.5%]; risk difference [RD], 3.2%; 95% CI, −5.7% to 12.0%; relative risk [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.85-1.39; P = .49) or in the population with a MODS of more than 9 (treatment group, 65 of 146 [44.5%] vs sham, 65 of 148 [43.9%]; RD, 0.6%; 95% CI, −10.8% to 11.9%; RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.78-1.31; P = .92). Overall, 264 serious adverse events were reported (65.1% treatment group vs 57.3% sham group). The most frequent serious adverse events were worsening of sepsis (10.8% treatment group vs 9.1% sham group) and worsening of septic shock (6.6% treatment group vs 7.7% sham group). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with septic shock and high endotoxin activity, polymyxin B hemoperfusion treatment plus conventional medical therapy compared with sham treatment plus conventional medical therapy did not reduce mortality at 28 days.
Prostate cancer is the second most diagnosed cancer of men all over the world. In the last few decades, new imaging techniques based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) have been developed to improve diagnosis. In practise, diagnosis can be affected by multiple factors such as observer variability and visibility and complexity of the lesions. In this regard, computer-aided detection and computer-aided diagnosis systems have been designed to help radiologists in their clinical practice. Research on computer-aided systems specifically focused for prostate cancer is a young technology and has been part of a dynamic field of research for the last 10 years. This survey aims to provide a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art in this lapse of time, focusing on the different stages composing the work-flow of a computer-aided system. We also provide a comparison between studies and a discussion about the potential avenues for future research. In addition, this paper presents a new public online dataset which is made available to the research community with the aim of providing a common evaluation framework to overcome some of the current limitations identified in this survey.
PurposeThe EUPHRATES trial examined the impact of polymyxin B hemoperfusion (PMX) on mortality in patients with septic shock and endotoxemia, defined as EAA ≥ 0.60. No difference was found in 28-day all-cause mortality. However, the trial showed that in some patients with septic shock the burden of endotoxin activity was extreme (EAA ≥ 0.9). In a post hoc analysis, we evaluated the impact of PMX use in patients with septic shock and endotoxin activity measured between 0.6–0.89.MethodsPost-hoc analysis of the EUPHRATES trial for the 194 patients with EAA ≥ 0.6–0.89 who completed two treatments (PMX or sham). The primary end point was mortality at 28 days adjusted for APACHE II score and baseline mean arterial pressure (MAP). Additional end points included changes in MAP, cumulative vasopressor index (CVI), median EAA reduction, ventilator-free days (VFD), dialysis-free days (DFD) and hospital length of stay. Subpopulations analyzed were site and type of infection and those with norepinephrine dose > 0.1 mcg/kg/min at baseline.ResultsAt 28 days, 23 patients of 88 (26.1%) in the PMX group died versus 39 of 106 (36.8%) in the sham group [risk difference 10.7%, OR 0.52, 95% CI (0.27, 0.99), P = 0.047]. When unadjusted for baseline variables, P = 0.11. The 28-day survival time in the PMX group was longer than for the sham group [HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.33, 0.95) P = 0.03]. PMX treatment compared with sham showed greater change in MAP [median (IQR) 8 mmHg (− 0.5, 19.5) vs. 4 mmHg (− 4.0, 11) P = 0.04] and VFD [median (IQR) 20 days (0.5, 23.5) vs. 6 days (0, 20), P = 0.004]. There were no significant differences in other end points. There was a significant difference in mortality in PMX-treated patients with no bacterial growth on culture [PMX, 6/30 (20%) vs. sham, 13/31 (41.9%), P = 0.005]. The median EAA change in the population was − 12.9% (range: increase 49.2%–reduction 86.3%). The mortality in the above median EAA change group was PMX: 6/38 (15.7%) vs. sham 15/49 (30.6%), P = 0.08.ConclusionsThese hypothesis-generating results, based on an exploratory post hoc analysis of the EUPHRATES trial, suggest measurable responses in patients with septic shock and an EAA ≥ 0.6 to 0.89 on changes in mean arterial pressure, ventilator-free days and mortality.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01046669. Funding Spectral Medical Incorporated.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-018-5463-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.