Search

The usage of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in cardiothoracic surgery contributes to the activation of the inflammatory response. In certain cases, the systemic inflammatory response may be immoderate, leading to organ dysfunction, such as acute renal failure or multiorgan dysfunction. This study aimed to examine the effect of haemoadsorption (HA) therapy on inflammatory markers and renal damage indices during cardiopulmonary bypass and in the early postoperative period. We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data in a single tertiary care center on patients operated between January 2021 and May 2022. The levels of inflammatory markers and renal parameters in blood samples (Interleukin (IL) 6, C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cells, lactate, procalcitonin (PCT), and NT-proBNP, urea, creatinine, glomerular filtration rate (GFR), mechanical ventilation days and intensive care unit (ICU) days) were compared between the three groups. Data from the Jafron HA 330 (n = 20) and CytoSorb300 (n = 20) groups were compared with those from the control group (n = 20). All patients underwent cardiopulmonary bypass for more than 120 min. Baseline patient characteristics were similar in all three groups. Acute kidney injury (AKI) was diagnosed in 17 patients (28.3%); seven patients were in the Jafron HA 330, two in the CytoSorb300, and eight in the control group. We found that IL1α, IL 6, IL8, Lactate dehydrogenase, PCT, NT-proBNP, CRP, Leukocyte, and TNFα had no significant or clinical difference between the CytoSorb 300 and Jafron HA 330 adsorber groups. Our results indicate that haemoadsorption therapy does not significantly reduce the risk of AKI after prolonged CPB, but decreases the need for renal replacement therapy.

Background: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) candidates are at increased risk of immune dysregulation and infectious complications. To attenuate the elevated proinflammatory cytokine levels and associated adverse clinical outcomes, it has been postulated that extracorporeal blood purification could improve the overall survival rate and morbidity of patients undergoing LVAD implantation. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data of 15 patients who underwent LVAD implantation at our center between January 2021 and March 2022. Of these, 15 (100%) who received HeartMate 3™ (St. Jude Medical, Abbott, MN, USA) device were eligible. Intraoperatively, patients were single randomized 1:1:1 to three groups: group 1, patients who received Cytosorb therapy (n = 5; installed in the CPB circuit); group 2, patients who received Jafron HA330 (n = 5; installed in the CPB circuit); and control group 3, patients who did not receive filter (n = 5; usual care, neither Cytosorb nor Jafron during CPB). Baseline patient characteristics and intraoperative data were compared between the groups. Blood sample analyses were performed to assess the levels of inflammatory markers (IL-1, 6, 8; CRP, Leukocyte, Lactate, PCT, NT-proBNP, TNF-α) in both preoperative and postoperative data. Results: Baseline patient characteristics were similar in all three groups. We found that IL1α; IL 6; IL8; Lactatedehydrogenase, PCT, pro-BNP, CRP; Leukocyte, and TNFα levels significantly increased with LVAD implantation and that neither Cytosorb nor Jafron influenced this response. In-hospital mortality and overall survival during follow-up were similar among the groups. Conclusion: Our preliminary results showed that hemoadsorption therapy using Cytosorb or Jafron hemoadsorption (HA) 330 may not be clinically beneficial for patients with advanced heart failure undergoing LVAD implantation. Large prospective studies are needed to evaluate the potential role of HA therapy in improving outcomes in patients undergoing LVAD implantation.

Background: ECMO support is associated with the development of a systemic hyper‐inflammatory response, which may become quite significant and extreme in some cases. We hypothesize that Cytosorb or Jafron therapy may benefit patients on V‐A ECMO in terms of levels of inflammatory markers such as IL‐6, complications, and overall outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of prospectively collected data in a single tertiary care center between January 2021 and April 2022. At the time of the analysis of this article, 20 patients on V‐A ECMO had cytokine adsorption while on ECMO support: Cytosorb group (n = 10), Jafron group (n = 10). In 10 ECMO‐supported patients cytokine adsorption was not used, this group served as a control group, which may be quite significant in some cases. Evaluation of the level of inflammatory markers (IL‐1, 6, 8; CRP, Leukocyte, Lactate, PCT, NT‐proBNP, TNF‐α) was performed. Results: There was statistically significant longer CPB time, aortic cross‐clamp time and ICU stay in cytokine adsorption groups than in the control group, but there were no differences between subgroups with different types of haemoadsorption used. Moreover, in the control group mortality rate was higher than in the cytokine adsorption groups (60% vs. 20%, p = 0.02). All patients had an elevation of inflammatory markers in the perioperative and immediate postoperative periods. After 72 h of intensive care, blood inflammation markers had a tendency to decline. Conclusion: At the time of writing, hemadsorption in patients requiring V‐A ECMO support represents a good therapeutic effect. This effect is permanent for the whole period of extracorporeal cytokine hemadsorption application for both CytoSorb and Jafron HA330 devices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]