nach oben

Erschienen in:

Open Access 01.12.2023 | Research

Comparison of the cytokine adsorption ability in continuous renal replacement therapy using polyethyleneimine-coated polyacrylonitrile (AN69ST) or polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) hemofilters: a pilot single-center open-label randomized control trial

verfasst von: Yoshihiko Nakamura, Hiroki Hatomoto, Shintaro Yamasaki, Kazuya Yamauchi, Fumiaki Kiyomi, Kota Hoshino, Yasumasa Kawano, Takafumi Nakano, Takehiro Hasegawa, Hiroyasu Ishikura

Erschienen in: European Journal of Medical Research | Ausgabe 1/2023

Abstract

Background

Sepsis occurs as a result of dysregulated host response to infection. However, cytokine adsorption therapy may restore the balance of proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory mediator responses in patients with sepsis. This study aimed to determine the cytokine adsorption ability of two different types of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) hemofilters for polyethyleneimine-coated polyacrylonitrile (AN69ST) (surface-treated) and polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) CRRT.

Methods

We performed a randomized controlled trial among sepsis patients undergoing CRRT, who were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either AN69ST or PMMA-CRRT. The primary outcome was cytokine clearance of hemofilter adsorption (CHA). The secondary endpoints were the intensive care unit (ICU) and 28-day mortalities.

Results

We randomly selected 52 patients. Primary outcome data were available for 26 patients each in the AN69ST-CRRT and PMMA-CRRT arms. The CHA of high-mobility group box 1, tumor necrosis factor, interleukin (IL)-8, monokine induced by interferon-γ, and macrophage inflammatory protein were significantly higher in the AN69ST-CRRT group than in the PMMA-CRRT group (P < 0.001, P < 0.01, P < 0.001, P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). In contrast, the CHA of IL-6 was significantly higher in the PMMA-CRRT group than in the AN69ST-CRRT group (P < 0.001). In addition, the 28-day mortality was not significantly different between the two groups (50% in AN69ST-CRRT vs. 30.8% in PMMA-CRRT, P = 0.26).

Conclusion

AN69ST and PMMA membranes have different cytokine CHA in patients with sepsis. Therefore, these two hemofilters may have to be used depending on the target cytokine.

Trial registration number: This study was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network on November 1, 2017 (Trial No: UMIN000029450, https://center6.umin.ac.jp).

Additional file 1. Circuit schema.

Additional file 2. Cytokine levels at each sampling point.

Additional file 3. Number of serious adverse events.

Additional file 4. Molecular weights and isoelectric points of cytokines. The theoretical molecular weights and isoelectric points of each cytokine are indicated in the Table and Figure***. Values were calculated by Expasy (https://web.expasy.org/compute_pi/) based on the amino acid sequence of matured protein. HMGB-1 high-mobility group box 1, TNF-α tumor necrosis factor, IL interleukin, MIG monokine induced by interferon-γ, MIP macrophage inflammatory protein.

Additional file 5. Results of primary endpoint analysis after excluding patients with circuit life span of within 24 h.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-023-01184-6.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

AKI

Acute kidney injury

CHA

Clearance of hemofilter adsorption

Confidence interval

CRRT

Continuous renal replacement therapy

COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019

Filtration flow rate

HMGB1

High-mobility group box 1

ICUFDs

Intensive care unit-free days

ICU

Intensive care unit

Interleukin

MIP

Macrophage inflammatory protein

MIG

Monokine induced by interferon-γ

Nafamostat mesylate

Odds ratio

PaO₂/F_IO₂

Partial pressure of arterial oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen

AN69ST

Polyacrylonitrile

PEI

Polyethyleneimine

PMMA

Polymethylmethacrylate

Quantity of blood flow

RCT

Randomized controlled trial

RRT

Renal replacement therapy

SOFA

Sequential Organ Failure Assessment

SARS-CoV-2

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

TMP

Transmembrane pressure

TNF-α

Tumor necrosis factor-alpha

VAI

Vasopressor index

Background

Sepsis, which is a life-threatening organ dysfunction, is caused by the dysregulated host response to infection [1]. High blood levels of proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines are associated with mortality [2]. This signal activates leukocytes and induces the synthesis of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-10. In addition, the massive release of cytokines in the blood has been described as a “cytokine storm” and is believed to be responsible for major organ dysfunction [3]. Moreover, cytokine adsorption therapy may restore the balance of proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory mediator responses in patients with sepsis [4]. Thus, cytokine adsorption therapy may reduce the mortality rate; however, this potential has not yet been proven.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is significantly associated with a high mortality rate in critically ill patients [5]. Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is widely used in the intensive care unit (ICU) [6]. In addition, cytokine-adsorbing hemofilters, including polyethyleneimine (PEI)-coated polyacrylonitrile (AN69ST) or polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) [7‐9] membranes, are commonly used in Japan for appropriate control of cytokine overproduction in patients with sepsis. In vitro studies have demonstrated that AN69ST membranes have a superior adsorption ability for TNF-α, IL-8 [10], and high-mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) [11], whereas PMMA membranes strongly adsorb IL-6 [10]. A previous observational study showed that the ability of adsorption for chemokines was different between the AN69ST and PMMA membranes [12]. However, clinical evidence comparing cytokine adsorption in these two hemofilters is lacking, and from these aspects, we evaluated the cytokines, including TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-18, monokine induced by interferon-γ (MIG), macrophage inflammatory protein (MIP)-1α, and HMGB1 in the present study. This open-label randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to clarify the difference in cytokine adsorption ability between the AN69ST and PMMA hemofilters.

Methods

Trial design and patients

This pilot open-label RCT was conducted at the Tertiary Emergency and Critical Care Center of Fukuoka University Hospital (Fukuoka, Japan) according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Our emergency and closed ICU has 32 beds. The trial was registered at the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000029450), and its protocol was previously published (https://center6.umin.ac.jp). Eligible patients (at least 18 years of age) included those (1) with sepsis diagnosed using the Sepsis-3 definition [1] on admission; (2) who underwent CRRT therapy; and (3) with AKI diagnosed according to the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcome [13] criteria or had undergone prior dialysis for treating end-stage kidney disease (EDKD). Sepsis was defined as cases caused not only by bacterial, but also by viral infection [1]. Therefore, patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were subjected to the same eligibility criteria, randomization procedure, consent process, and interventions as other patients with sepsis. Patients who had COVID-19 included those with AKI and without AKI, as the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare recommends considering CRRT for patients with COVID-19 (https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/000936655.pdf). Regarding the payment for renal replacement therapy (RRT), Japan has adopted a universal health insurance system. Therefore, patients’ financial condition does not influence physicians’ decisions about medical interventions and RRT induction [14]. Furthermore, no evidence regarding the optimal RRT conditions for AKI is firmly established [15]. Therefore, the timing of RRT initiation depends on the attending clinician’s decision.

Interventions and procedures

The PMMA and AN69ST groups were defined based on the PMMA and AN69ST membranes. CRRT was initiated immediately after ICU admission. The patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to the AN69ST or PMMA groups. Random numbers were generated using the Excel random function (Microsoft Japan Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), and patients were then randomly assigned to groups according to the hemofilter used.

All patients were randomized immediately following ICU admission, and CRRT was initiated in the ICU. CRRT was performed using ACH-10® or ACH-Σ® (Asahi Kasei Medical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). The hemofilters used were an AN69ST (sepXiris150; Baxter Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) or a PMMA membrane (Hemofeel CH1.5N; Toray Medical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). All CRRT modes were continuous hemodiafiltration. The operating conditions were as follows: quantity of blood flow (QB), 80–100 mL/min; dialysate flow rate, 500 mL/h; and filtration flow rate (QF), 300 mL/h. Sublood-BS (Fuso Pharmaceutical Industries, Osaka, Japan) was used as both the dialysate and replacement fluid. Nafamostat mesylate (NM) (Asahi Kasei Pharma Corp., Tokyo, Japan) was administered as an anticoagulant, and the dose was maintained in the range of 0–30 mg/h. The activated clotting time after hemofiltration was maintained at > 180 s, and it was measured using the Hemochron Response (Heiwa Bussan, Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). NM is a protease inhibitor that strongly inhibits the activity of various coagulation enzymes [16]. Because of its short half-life, NM is regarded as a useful regional anticoagulant during hemodialysis in patients with bleeding tendencies [17]. Accordingly, NM has been in use since 1990 (primarily in Japan) [18] as a regional and widely used as anticoagulant during blood purification in Japanese ICUs [19].

Data and sample collection

The baseline data, including patients’ characteristics such as age, sex, comorbidities, AKI stage on admission, source of infection, and detected microorganism (COVID-19 was diagnosed based on the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2] on reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction or SARS-CoV-2 antigen from a nasopharyngeal swab sample), diagnosed septic shock [1] on admission; laboratory data, including white blood cell and platelet counts and total bilirubin, creatinine, lactate, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin levels; whether or not mechanical ventilation was performed; partial pressure of arterial oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO₂/F_IO₂) ratio; vasopressor index (VAI) [20]; and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II [21] and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) [22] scores on admission, hemofilter lifetime, the number of hemofilters used within 24 h after CRRT initiation, and sample collection time after CRRT initiation were also collected.

Blood samples and filtrates were drawn from the extracorporeal circuit at the inlet and outlet of the hemofilter 2–6 and 12–24 h after initiating CRRT (circuit schema is shown in Additional file 1) to evaluate cytokine clearance of hemofilter adsorption (CHA), and blood samples were collected before ICU admission and on days 2–4 and 5–7 after ICU admission from the peripheral arterial catheter. Whole blood was collected with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid-2 K as an anticoagulant in a conventional blood collection tube NP-EN0557-6 (NIPRO Co., Osaka, Japan). The blood was centrifuged at 1,400 × g for 15 min, and the plasma was stored at -80 °C until measurement.

TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, MIG, and MIP-1α levels were measured using a HISCL-5000 (Sysmex Co., Kobe, Japan) [23] and HMGB1 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit (Shino-Test Corp., Tokyo Japan).

Outcomes

The primary outcome was cytokine CHA. Plasma cytokine clearance was calculated according to the following formula [8, 24]:

$${\text{Plasma clearance}};{\text{ CLs }} = \, ({\text{CBi}} - {\text{CBo}})/{\text{CBi}} \times \left( {{\text{QB}} - {\text{QF}}} \right) + {\text{QF}},$$

$${\text{Transmembrane clearance}};{\text{ FLs }} = \, \left( {{\text{CF}}/{\text{CBi}}} \right) \, \times {\text{ QF,}}$$

$${\text{Clearance of hemofilter adsorption CHA }} = {\text{ CLs}} - {\text{FLs,}}$$

where CBi is the blood cytokine level at the filter inlet, CBo represents the blood cytokine level at the filter outlet, QB is the quantity of blood flow (mL/min), QF is the ultrafiltrate flow rate (mL/h), and CF is the cytokine level in the filtrate.

Secondary endpoints included blood cytokine levels upon admission to the ICU and on days 2–4 and 5–7 after ICU admission, ICU mortality, 28-day all-cause mortality, VAI [20], PaO₂/F_IO₂ ratio at 48 h following the CRRT procedure, and ICU-free days (ICUFDs). The VAI was calculated as follows; (dopamine dose × 1) + (dobutamine dose × 1) + adrenaline dose × 100) + (noradrenaline dose × 100), with all doses expressed as μg/kg/min. ICUFDs were calculated as follows: ICUFDs = 0 if the patient died within the first 28 days; ICUFDs = (28-x) if the patient survived for more than 28 days, where x is the number of days spent in the ICU; and ICUFDs = (28-y) if the patient was transferred to another hospital before 28 days had elapsed, where y is the number of days spent in the ICU.

Safety and feasibility outcomes included the number of patients with serious adverse events and reactions in both arms.

Statistical analyses

Data are presented as medians (interquartile ranges) for continuous variables and percentages for categorical variables. We used the Wilcoxon, Steel–Dwass, and Chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests for comparing two groups of continuous variables, multiple comparisons between continuous variables, and comparing categorical variables, respectively. Furthermore, ICU and 28-day mortality rates were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression, and the explanatory variables were age and SOFA score. The data were analyzed using the statistical software JMP12 for Windows (SAS Institute Japan, Tokyo, Japan). Results were considered statistically significant at P-values less than 0.05. Since this was a pilot study, a sample size estimation was not conducted.

Results

Patient baseline characteristics

Overall, 53 patients were enrolled and randomized to either the AN69ST (n = 26) or PMMA (n = 27) group. One patient was excluded because of death before sample collection. Therefore, 26 patients from each group were included in the primary and secondary analyses (Fig. 1). Baseline characteristics including age, sex, comorbidity, AKI severity, source of infection, detected microorganism, laboratory findings, treatment, and cytokine levels (at the inlet of the hemofilter, 2–6 h after initiating CRRT), did not differ between the groups. All non-AKI patients had COVID-19-related sepsis. In contrast, the SOFA score was significantly higher in the AN69ST group than in the PMMA group (P < 0.01) (Table 1).

Table 1

Patient characteristics

Variable	AN69ST	PMMA	P value^a
Variable	(n = 26)	(n = 26)	P value^a
Age, years	69.5 (63.3–74.0)	71.5 (63.3–77.3)	0.83
Sex, male	19 (73.0)	19 (73.0)	1.00
Comorbidity
Hypertension	12 (46.2)	13 (50.0)	0.78
Diabetes	9 (34.6)	8 (30.8)	0.77
Chronic heart failure	2 (7.7)	0 (0.0)	0.24
Coronary artery disease	3 (11.5)	1 (3.8)	0.61
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease	1 (3.8)	2 (7.7)	1.00
Chronic liver disease	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)
KDIGO stage			0.76
Non-AKI^b	4 (15.4)	3 (11.5)
Stage 1	7 (26.9)	8 (30.8)
Stage 2	3 (11.5)	3 (11.5)
Stage 3	12 (46.2)	12 (46.2)
Prior dialysis due to ESKD	6 (23.1)	4 (15.4)	0.50
Septic shock	6 (23.1)	5 (19.2)	0.74
Source of infection			0.96
Respiratory	13 (50.0)	12 (46.2)
Intraabdominal	8 (30.8)	10 (38.5)
Skin and soft tissue	3 (11.5)	2 (7.7)
Urinary	0 (0)	0 (0.0)
Others	2 (7.7)	2 (7.7)
Microorganisms isolated/or positively identified
G( +)	2 (7.7)	5 (19.2)	0.42
G(−)	4 (15.4)	4 (15.4)	1.00
G( +) and G(−)	8 (30.8)	2 (7.7)	0.08
SARS-CoV-2	7 (26.9)	7 (26.9)	1.00
Others	5 (19.2)	3 (11.5)	0.70
Not detected and unknown	4 (15.4)	6 (23.1)	0.73
Laboratory test results on admission
WBC, × 10⁹ counts/L	9.4 (6.6–14.3)	10.3 (7.6–17.5)	0.39
Plt, × 10⁹ counts/L	26.9 (10.2–115.3)	47.4 (15.4–152.5)	0.44
T-bil, mg/dL	1.1 (0.6–2.6)	0.8 (0.6–1.3)	0.18
Cr, mg/dL	2.1 (1.5–2.9)	2.6 (1.0–5.2)	0.67
Lac, mg/dL	26.0 (13.8–61.5)	14.7 (11.2–33.6)	0.09
CRP, mg/dL	10.0 (7.2–18.8)	10.8 (4.4–21.2)	0.84
PCT, ng/mL	2.7 (1.3–10.9)	7.0 (0.3–45.1)	0.88
Mechanical ventilation	22 (84.6)	22 (84.6)	1.00
PaO₂/F_IO₂ ratio	134.3 (88.8–315.8)	145.5 (102.2–249.0)	0.73
VAI	17.9 (5.5–35.2)	6.1 (0–31.1)	0.07
APACHE II score	26.0 (18.3–28.8)	19.5 (18.0–24.8)	0.09
SOFA score	12.0 (10.3–15.0)	8.5 (7.0–12.8)	< 0.01
Anticoagulant used for CRRT			1.00
Heparin	2 (7.7)	1 (3.8)
Nafamostat mesylate	24 (92.3)	25 (96.2)
Baseline cytokine levels^c
HMGB1, ng/mL	3.6 (2.0–5.5)	3.1 (1.9–6.6)	0.88
TNF-α, pg/mL	2.9 (1.3–6.7)	2.8 (1.3–5.6)	0.79
IL-6, pg/mL	1736.2 (584.0–16,407.0)	1369.4 (303.4–3791.8)	0.48
IL-8, pg/mL	73.2 (26.8–518.2)	61.4 (34.2–357.1)	0.80
IL-10, pg/mL	34.1 (14.0–142.1)	47.1 (25.9–149.9)	0.24
IL-18, pg/mL	868.6 (553.1–1286.8)	637.6 (516.5–1390.2)	0.62
MIG, pg/mL	76.8 (46.9–238.8)	107.1 (41.7–438.6)	0.52
MIP-1α, pg/mL	146.5 (72.2–323.8)	149.6 (65.2–242.3)	0.60
CRRT prescribed
Blood flow rate, mL/min	80 (80–80)	80 (80–80)	0.57
Ultrafiltrate flow rate, mL/h	300 (300–318)	300 (300–314)	0.71
Dialysate flow rate, mL/h	500 (500–500)	500 (500–500)	0.23
CRRT filter life time
1st filter, h	17.0 (8.7–22.8)	13.3 (4.1–27.7)	0.66
2nd filter, h	9.7 (3.2–18.3)	12.6 (3.5–21.3)	0.43
Number of filter exchanges within 24 h	1 (0–1.3)	1 (0–1)	0.72
Time window within which blood samples and filtrates were drawn
2–6 h, h	2.2 (2.0–3.0)	2.3 (2.0–3.3)	0.89
12–24 h, h	14.8 (13.7–18.4)	14.7 (12.4–19.2)	0.98

Data are given as medians and interquartile ranges or n (%)

AN69ST polyethyleneimine-coated polyacrylonitrile, PMMA polymethylmethacrylate, IQR interquartile range, KDIGO Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes, ESKD end-stage renal failure, AKI acute kidney injury, G( +) Gram-positive infection, G(−) Gram-negative infection, SARS-CoV-2 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, WBC white blood cell, Plt platelet, T-bil total bilirubin, Cr creatinine, Lac serum lactic acid, CRP C-reactive protein, PCT procalcitonin, PaO₂/F_IO₂ partial pressure of arterial oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen, VAI vasopressor index, APACHE acute physiology and chronic health evaluation, SOFA sequential organ failure assessment, CRRT continuous renal replacement therapy, HMGB1 high-mobility group box 1, TNF tumor necrosis factor, IL interleukin, MIG monokine induced by interferon-γ, MIP-1α macrophage inflammatory protein 1 alpha

^aWilcoxon test or χ² test

^bAll non-AKI patients had coronavirus disease 2019-related sepsis

^cSamples were at the inlet of the hemofilter 2–6 h after initiating CRRT

Primary outcomes

A comparison of cytokine CHA is presented in Table 2. The ability of CHA of HMGB1, TNF-α, IL-8, MIG, and MIP-1α was significantly higher in the AN69ST group than in the PMMA group. In contrast, PMMA membranes had a significantly higher ability to adsorb IL-6 than AN69ST membranes. Cytokine levels at each sampling point are presented in Additional file 2.

Table 2

Primary outcome (cytokine clearance of hemofilter adsorption)

Mediators	Clearance	Sampling time window	AN69ST	PMMA	P value^a
Mediators	Clearance	Sampling time window	(n = 26)	(n = 26)	P value^a
HMGB1	Plasma clearance (mL/min)	2–6 h	43.6 (30.2–52.8)	5.1 (− 15.5–17.5)	< 0.001
	Plasma clearance (mL/min)	12–24 h	20.1 (6.7–45.2)	0.9 (− 20.0–11.1)	< 0.001
	Transmembrane clearance (mL/min)	2–6 h	0 (0–0)	0 (0–0.34)	0.16
	Transmembrane clearance (mL/min)	12–24 h	0 (0–0.35)	0 (0–0.18)	0.47
	Clearance of hemofilter adsorption (mL/min)	2–6 h	43.6 (29.8–52.8)	3.6 (-15.9–17.5)	< 0.001
	Clearance of hemofilter adsorption (mL/min)	12–24 h	20.1 (6.2–45.2)	− 0.7 (− 20.0–11.1)	< 0.001
TNF-α	Plasma clearance (mL/min)	2–6 h	33.5 (28.8–36.3)	26.2 (7.5–30.0)	< 0.01
	Plasma clearance (mL/min)	12–24 h	24.7 (18.6–32.3)	13.8 (9.2–24.1)	< 0.01
	Transmembrane clearance (mL/min)	2–6 h	0.01 (0–0.07)	0 (0–0.06)	0.70
	Transmembrane clearance (mL/min)	12–24 h	0.04 (0–0.09)	0 (0–0.02)	< 0.05
	Clearance of hemofilter adsorption (mL/min)	2–6 h	33.5 (29.4–36.8)	26.4 (6.9–30.2)	< 0.01
	Clearance of hemofilter adsorption (mL/min)	12–24 h	25.0 (20.4–32.2)	14.0 (9.1–24.9)	< 0.01
IL-6	Plasma clearance (mL/min)	2–6 h	9.4 (7.8–12.1)	17.6 (10.7–22.5)	< 0.001
	Plasma clearance (mL/min)	12–24 h	9.2 (5.6–12.0)	9.1 (4.0–14.7)	0.82
	Transmembrane clearance (mL/min)	2–6 h	1.8 (1.6–2.2)	0 (0–0.01)	< 0.001
	Transmembrane clearance (mL/min)	12–24 h	1.72 (1.26–2.12)	0.08 (0–0.22)	< 0.01
	Clearance of hemofilter adsorption (mL/min)	2–6 h	7.6 (4.3–10.6)	17.6 (10.7–22.4)	< 0.001
	Clearance of hemofilter adsorption (mL/min)	12–24 h	7.4 (3.4–9.8)	9.1 (3.7–14.6)	0.29
IL-8	Plasma clearance (mL/min)	2–6 h	47.4 (33.0–50.5)	6.2 (− 8.7–12.0)	< 0.01
	Plasma clearance (mL/min)	12–24 h	33.9 (14.9–46.4)	3.4 (− 31.0–9.3)	< 0.01
	Transmembrane clearance (mL/min)	2–6 h	0.15 (0.04–0.87)	1.34 (1.04–4.89)	< 0.01
	Transmembrane clearance (mL/min)	12–24 h	0.4 (0.2–1.2)	3.9 (3.1–11.2)	< 0.01
	Clearance of hemofilter adsorption (mL/min)	2–6 h	47.0 (31.8–50.7)	4.5 (-11.4–10.6)	< 0.001
	Clearance of hemofilter adsorption (mL/min)	12–24 h	34.1 (13.6–44.6)	0.7 (− 50.0–5.8)	< 0.001
IL-10	Plasma clearance (mL/min)	2–6 h	28.3 (23.1–36.6)	27.2 (16.5–30.3)	0.37
	Plasma clearance (mL/min)	12–24 h	26.0 (18.1–29.1)	18.8 (12.9–24.8)	0.07
	Transmembrane clearance (mL/min)	2–6 h	0 (0–0.01)	0 (0–0)	0.18
	Transmembrane clearance (mL/min)	12–24 h	0.02 (0.01–0.06)	0.01 (0–0.01)	< 0.01
	Clearance of hemofilter adsorption (mL/min)	2–6 h	28.3 (23.1–35.6)	27.2 (16.5–30.3)	0.36
	Clearance of hemofilter adsorption (mL/min)	12–24 h	26.0 (17.7–29.0)	18.7 (12.9–24.8)	0.07
IL-18	Plasma clearance (mL/min)	2–6 h	− 0.4 (-3.3–2.3)	− 0.6 (− 3.0–1.5)	0.73
	Plasma clearance (mL/min)	12–24 h	− 0.2 (-3.1–2.4)	− 2.5 (− 4.7–0.7)	0.17
	Transmembrane clearance (mL/min)	2–6 h	0.01 (0–0.01)	0.10 (0.06–0.13)	< 0.001
	Transmembrane clearance (mL/min)	12–24 h	0.01 (0–0.01)	0.01 (0.04–0.01)	< 0.001
	Clearance of hemofilter adsorption (mL/min)	2–6 h	− 0.4 (-3.3–2.3)	− 0.7 (− 3.2–1.4)	0.62
	Clearance of hemofilter adsorption (mL/min)	12–24 h	− 0.6 (− 2.4–2.5)	− 2.5 (− 4.7–0.6)	0.09
MIG	Plasma clearance (mL/min)	2–6 h	64.9 (61.9–66.9)	24.0 (18.8–32.9)	< 0.001
	Plasma clearance (mL/min)	12–24 h	59.3 (52.4–61.8)	10.7 (7.4–19.2)	< 0.001
	Transmembrane clearance (mL/min)	2–6 h	0.13 (0.06–0.20)	0.19 (0.05–0.76)	0.30
	Transmembrane clearance (mL/min)	12–24 h	0.48 (0.18–0.86)	2.00 (0.66–2.33)	< 0.05
	Clearance of hemofilter adsorption (mL/min)	2–6 h	64.6 (61.6–66.7)	24.0 (18.0–32.2)	< 0.001
	Clearance of hemofilter adsorption (mL/min)	12–24 h	58.6 (49.2–61.2)	8.3 (5.2–17.6)	< 0.001
MIP-1α	Plasma clearance (mL/min)	2–6 h	64.3 (60.9–65.9)	38.9 (16.1–45.7)	< 0.001
	Plasma clearance (mL/min)	12–24 h	54.9 (48.1–58.9)	20.9 (5.0–31.7)	< 0.001
	Transmembrane clearance (mL/min)	2–6 h	0.02 (0.01–0.05)	0.01 (0–0.02)	< 0.05
	Transmembrane clearance (mL/min)	12–24 h	0.22 (0.04–0.67)	0.14 (0.01–0.61)	0.36
	Clearance of hemofilter adsorption (mL/min)	2–6 h	64.2 (60.9–65.9)	38.9 (16.0–45.8)	< 0.001
	Clearance of hemofilter adsorption (mL/min)	12–24 h	54.8 (47.4–58.9)	20.6 (4.3–31.6)	< 0.001

Data are given as medians and interquartile ranges

CBi blood cytokine level at the filter inlet, CBo blood cytokine level at the outlet, QB blood flow rate (mL/min), QF flow rate of the ultrafiltrate, CF cytokine level in the filtrate

AN69ST polyethyleneimine-coated polyacrylonitrile, PMMA polymethylmethacrylate, HMGB1 high-mobility group box 1, TNF tumor necrosis factor, IL interleukin, MIG monokine induced by interferon-γ, MIP-1α macrophage inflammatory protein 1 alpha

^aWilcoxon test

${\text{Plasma clearance }} = \, ({\text{CBi}} - {\text{CBo}})/{\text{CBi}} \times \left( {{\text{QB}} - {\text{QF}}} \right) + {\text{QF}},$

${\text{Transmembrane clearance }} = \, \left( {{\text{CF}}/{\text{CBi}}} \right) \, \times {\text{ QF,}}$

${\text{Clearance of hemofilter adsorption }} = {\text{ plasma clearance}} - {\text{transmembrane clearance}}{.}$

Secondary outcomes

The time course of cytokine levels within 7 days of admission is shown in Fig. 2. In the AN69ST group, HMGB1, TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, MIG, and MIP-1α levels were significantly decreased; in the PMMA group, TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, and IL-10 levels were significantly decreased. No significant difference was observed in all cytokine levels between the AN69ST and PMMA groups at each timepoint.

Furthermore, ICU and 28-day all-cause mortalities were not significantly different between the two groups in the unadjusted (odds ratio [OR] 1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62–5.76 for ICU mortality and OR 2.25, 95% CI 0.72–7.00 for 28-day all-cause mortality) and adjusted analyses (OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.49–5.90 for ICU mortality and OR 2.34, 95% CI 0.67–8.70 for 28-day all-cause mortality) (Table 3).

Table 3

Secondary outcomes

Outcome	AN69ST (n = 26)	PMMA (n = 26)	AN69ST vs. PMMA
Outcome	AN69ST (n = 26)	PMMA (n = 26)	Unadjusted 95% CI	Adjusted ^a 95% CI	Unadjusted P value	Adjusted ^a P value
ICU mortality, n (%)	13 (50.0)	9 (34.6)	1.89 (0.62–5.76)	1.65 (0.48–5.85)	0.40	0.42
28-day all-cause mortality, n (%)	13 (50.0)	8 (30.8)	2.00 (0.67–6.23)	2.34 (0.67–8.72)	0.22	0.18
ICUFDs, median (IQR)	0 (0–18.3)	0 (0–16.0)	0.99 (0.93–1.05)	–	0.65	–
VAI at 48 h after CRRT initiation, median (IQR)	0 (0–8.4)	0 (0–15.0)	1.01 (0.99–1.05)	–	0.32	–
P/F ratio at 48 h after CRRT initiation, median (IQR)	220 (61.4–321.0)	227 (91.5–308)	1.00 (0.99–1.00)	–	0.71	–

AN69ST polyethyleneimine-coated polyacrylonitrile, PMMA polymethylmethacrylate, CI confidence interval, ICU intensive care unit, ICUFDs ICU-free days, IQR interquartile range; CRRT continuous renal replacement therapy, VAI vasopressor index, P/F partial pressure of arterial oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen

^aAnalyzed by multilogistic regression model and explanatory variables such as age and SOFA score

Safety and feasibility outcomes

No serious adverse events were observed in either group (Additional file 3).

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first RCT to evaluate the difference in cytokine CHA between the AN69ST and PMMA hemofilters in a clinical setting. We found that AN69ST and PMMA membranes had significantly different cytokine CHA in patients with sepsis in different time points at 2–4 h and 12–24 h after CRRT initiation (Table 2).

The AN69 membrane is an electronegative copolymer of acrylonitrile and sodium methanesulfonate. AN69 can undergo adsorption in the membrane bulk through electrostatic interaction. In contrast, AN69ST was achieved by neutralizing the surface in contact with blood by ionic grafting of a polycationic polymer in AN69; however, AN69ST can also be adsorbed in the membrane bulk through electrostatic interaction [25]. The AN69ST group showed significantly superior ability to adsorb HMGB1, MIG, and MIP-1α compared with the PMMA group (Table 2). HMGB1 is well known to be adsorbed by AN69ST membranes in vitro [11, 26] and as a damage-associated molecular pattern. HMGB1 inhibitors have potential therapeutic applications [27, 28]. Moreover, MIG and MIP-1α are known as chemokines, which are drivers of cytokine storms due to infection [29]. AN69ST membranes reportedly have a higher chemokine adsorption ability than PMMA membranes, as evaluated using time-of-flight or mass spectrometry analysis [12].

An in vitro closed-loop circulation system study showed that time-dependent changes of transmembrane pressure (TMP) were not observed but time-dependent superiority for CHA ability was observed in AN69ST membrane in comparison with PMMA for HMGB1 [11], possibly because AN69ST can adsorb mediators not only on the surface, but also in the bulk of the membrane with hydrophobic bonding [11, 12]. In the present study, the ability of CHA was superior not only 2–6 h after CRRT initiation but also 12–24 h after CRRT initiation in AN69ST rather than PMMA, which supports the findings of Yumoto et al. [11] even though in a clinical setting. Because AN69ST is electronegative, positively charged mediators such as TNF-α [10], IL-8 [10], or NM [30] were adsorbed more than other membranes. Moriyama et al. [10] reported that different pH solutions with dissolved TNF-α, IL-6, and IL-8 were closed-loop circuit system in vitro, thus the pH of the test solution shifted from 7.6 to 6.8, the CLs of TNF-α, IL6, and IL-8 increased in the AN69ST hemofilter; whereas, no such trend was observed in the PMMA hemofilter. These results indicated the involvement of ionic interactions in cytokine adsorption by the AN69ST membrane but not the PMMA membrane. The present study also found that the CHA of TNF-α and IL-8 was superior in AN69ST, compared to PMMA. Isoelectric points and molecular weights of cytokine are shown in Additional file 4. IL-10 and MIG are more positively charged than TNF-α; however, IL-18, HMGB1, and MIP-1a are more negatively charged than TNF-α; therefore, further analysis is warranted for CHA mechanism in AN69ST membrane.

In contrast, PMMA membranes have a higher CHA ability for IL-6 than for AN69ST membranes (Table 2). Furthermore, the time course of IL-6 levels was significantly decreased in the PMMA group. IL-6 is a well-known sepsis biomarker, and its levels correlate with the severity of sepsis [31]. Blockade therapy is beneficial for cytokine storms [32]. Based on this study’s findings, we may have to distinguish between AN69ST and PMMA membrane use depending on the target molecules.

Cytokine levels were significantly decreased in both the AN69ST and PMMA groups (Fig. 2). In the AN69ST group, HMGB1, MIG, and MIP-1α levels were significantly decreased after ICU admission, but this was not observed in the PMMA group. However, no significant difference was observed in the cytokine levels between the two groups in terms of baseline characteristics (Table 1). Moreover, the baseline SOFA score was significantly higher in the AN69ST group than in the PMMA group; however, regarding the secondary endpoints, no significant difference was observed in clinical benefit after adjustment for the baseline SOFA score (Table 3). The present study was pilot study; therefore, the sample size was too small, indicating the need for further studies.

Some observational studies [33‐35] have shown that AN69ST hemofilters are superior to non-AN69ST hemofilters. Furthermore, AN69ST and PMMA membranes have already been widely used in Japan [33‐37], and no serious adverse events were observed in either group. Therefore, future RCTs are warranted to investigate the effect of AN69ST and PMMA hemofilters on clinical outcomes.

Strengths and limitations

The obvious strength of our study is the use of randomization to minimize selection bias. However, this study has some limitations. First, blinding of the interventions was not performed. Second, because this was a pilot, single-center study, generalizability is insufficient. Third, the present study did not have a control group that was not treated with CRRT. Therefore, this study did not provide information about endogenous clearance rates in septic patients, indicating that part of the decreased cytokine levels in blood may not depend on CRRT. Fourth, the sampling time windows (2–6 h and 12–24 h) were relatively wide. However, no significant differences in sampling time windows were observed between the two groups (Table 1), and even after excluding patients with a circuit life span of within 24 h, CHA ability was not different from the CHA ability when including all patients (Additional file 5).

Conclusions

Our first pilot RCT showed that AN69ST and PMMA hemofilters have different cytokine CHA ability in patients with sepsis. However, no significant difference was observed in the present pilot clinical study. Therefore, these two hemofilters may have to be used depending on the target cytokine.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing. Part of this study was supported by Sysmex Corp, which played no role in the study and measured cytokine and HMGB1 concentrations. Furthermore, this study was supported by a grant from the Clinical Research Promotion Foundation (2021).

Declarations

This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Review Board of Fukuoka University (approval number: 2017M089) and was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients or legal representatives provided informed consent.

All patients or legal representatives approved this publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. Circuit schema.

Additional file 2. Cytokine levels at each sampling point.

Additional file 3. Number of serious adverse events.

Additional file 5. Results of primary endpoint analysis after excluding patients with circuit life span of within 24 h.

Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, et al. The third international consensus definitions for sepsis and septic shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016;315:801–10. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.0287.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kellum JA, Kong L, Fink MP, Weissfeld LA, Yealy DM, Pinsky MR, et al. Understanding the inflammatory cytokine response in pneumonia and sepsis: results of the Genetic and inflammatory Markers of Sepsis (GenIMS) Study. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1655–63. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.167.15.1655.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Angus DC, van der Poll T. Severe sepsis and septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:840–51. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1208623.CrossRefPubMed

Ankawi G, Xie Y, Yang B, Xie Y, Xie P, Ronco C. What have we learned about the use of Cytosorb adsorption columns? Blood Purif. 2019;48:196–202. https://doi.org/10.1159/000500013.CrossRefPubMed

Chertow GM, Burdick E, Honour M, Bonventre JV, Bates DW. Acute kidney injury, mortality, length of stay, and costs in hospitalized patients. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2005;16:3365–70. https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2004090740.CrossRefPubMed

Uchino S, Bellomo R, Morimatsu H, Morgera S, Schetz M, Tan I, et al. Continuous renal replacement therapy: a worldwide practice survey. The beginning and ending supportive therapy for the kidney (B.E.S.T. kidney) investigators. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:1563–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-007-0754-4.CrossRefPubMed

Honore PM, Jacobs R, Joannes-Boyau O, De Regt J, De Waele E, van Gorp V, et al. Newly designed CRRT membranes for sepsis and SIRS–a pragmatic approach for bedside intensivists summarizing the more recent advances: a systematic structured review. ASAIO J. 2013;59:99–106. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAT.0b013e3182816a75.CrossRefPubMed

Shiga H, Hirasawa H, Nishida O, Oda S, Nakamura M, Mashiko K, et al. Continuous hemodiafiltration with a cytokine-adsorbing hemofilter in patients with septic shock: a preliminary report. Blood Purif. 2014;38:211–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000369377.CrossRefPubMed

Nakada TA, Oda S, Matsuda K, Sadahiro T, Nakamura M, Abe R, et al. Continuous hemodiafiltration with PMMA hemofilter in the treatment of patients with septic shock. Mol Med. 2008;14:257–63. https://doi.org/10.2119/2007-00108.Nakada.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Moriyama K, Kato Y, Hasegawa D, Kurimoto Y, Kawaji T, Nakamura T, et al. Involvement of ionic interactions in cytokine adsorption of polyethyleneimine-coated polyacrylonitrile and polymethyl methacrylate membranes in vitro. J Artif Organs. 2020;23:240–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10047-020-01173-0.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Yumoto M, Nishida O, Moriyama K, Shimomura Y, Nakamura T, Kuriyama N, et al. In vitro evaluation of high mobility group box 1 protein removal with various membranes for continuous hemofiltration. Ther Apher Dial. 2011;15:385–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-9987.2011.00971.x.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Michikoshi J, Matsumoto S, Miyawaki H, Morita M, Niu H, Seo K, et al. Evaluation of proteins and cells that adsorb to dialysis membranes used in continuous hemodiafiltration: comparison of AN69ST, polymethylmethacrylate, and polysulfone membranes. Blood Purif. 2019;48:358–67. https://doi.org/10.1159/000501632.CrossRefPubMed

13.

International Society of Nephrology. 2012 KDIGO clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury. Kidney Int Suppl. 2012;2:1–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/kisup.2012.1.CrossRef

14.

Yamada H, Yanagita M. Global perspectives in acute kidney injury: Japan. Kidney360. 2022;3:1099–104. https://doi.org/10.34067/KID.0007892021.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Egi M, Ogura H, Yatabe T, Atagi K, Inoue S, Iba T, et al. The Japanese clinical practice guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock 2020 (J-SSCG 2020). J Intensive Care. 2021;9:53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-021-00555-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Hitomi Y, Ikari N, Fujii S. Inhibitory effect of a new synthetic protease inhibitor (FUT-175) on the coagulation system. Haemostasis. 1985;15:164–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000215139.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Akizawa T, Kitaoka T, Sato M, Koshikawa S, Hirasawa Y, Kazama M, et al. Comparative clinical trial of regional anticoagulation for hemodialysis. ASAIO Trans. 1988;34:176–8.PubMed

18.

Lee YK, Lee HW, Choi KH, Kim BS. Ability of nafamostat mesilate to prolong filter patency during continuous renal replacement therapy in patients at high risk of bleeding: a randomized controlled study. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e108737. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108737.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Abe M, Shiga H, Tatsumi H, Endo Y, Kikuchi Y, Suzuki Y, et al. Results of the 2018 Japan Society for Blood Purification in Critical Care survey: current status and outcomes. Ren Replace Ther. 2022;8:58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41100-022-00445-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Cruz DN, Antonelli M, Fumagalli R, Foltran F, Brienza N, Donati A, et al. Early use of polymyxin B hemoperfusion in abdominal septic shock: the EUPHAS randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;301:2445–52. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.856.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. Apache II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985;13:818–29. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-198510000-00009.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, Willatts S, De Mendonça A, Bruining H, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22:707–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01709751.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Hasegawa T, Nakagawa A, Suzuki K, Yamashita K, Yamashita S, Iwanaga N, et al. Type 1 inflammatory endotype relates to low compliance, lung fibrosis, and severe complications in COVID-19. Cytokine. 2021;148:155618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cyto.2021.155618.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Hirayama T, Nosaka N, Okawa Y, Ushio S, Kitamura Y, Sendo T, et al. AN69ST membranes adsorb nafamostat mesylate and affect the management of anticoagulant therapy: a retrospective study. J Intensive Care. 2017;5:46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40560-017-0244-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Thomas M, Moriyama K, Ledebo I. AN69: evolution of the world’s first high permeability membrane. Contrib Nephrol. 2011;173:119–29. https://doi.org/10.1159/000328961.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Nakamura T, Moriyama K, Shimomura Y, Kato Y, Kuriyama N, Hara Y, et al. Adsorption kinetics of high mobility group box 1 protein in a polyacrylonitrile hemofiltration membrane. Ther Apher Dial. 2021;25:66–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-9987.13489.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Denning NL, Aziz M, Gurien SD, Wang P. DAMPs and NETs in sepsis. Front Immunol. 2019;10:2536. https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2019.02536.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Wang H, Ward MF, Sama AE. Targeting HMGB1 in the treatment of sepsis. Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2014;18:257–68. https://doi.org/10.1517/14728222.2014.863876.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Fajgenbaum DC, June CH. Cytokine storm. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:2255–73. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra2026131.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Nakamura Y, Hara S, Hatomoto H, Yamasaki S, Nakano T, Miyazaki M, et al. Adsorption of nafamostat mesilate on AN69ST membranes: a single-center retrospective and in vitro study. Ther Apher Dial. 2017;21:620–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-9987.12587.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Hotchkiss RS, Moldawer LL, Opal SM, Reinhart K, Turnbull IR, Vincent JL. Sepsis and septic shock. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016;2:16045. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2016.45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Tanaka T, Narazaki M, Kishimoto T. Immunotherapeutic implications of IL-6 blockade for cytokine storm. Immunotherapy. 2016;8:959–70. https://doi.org/10.2217/imt-2016-0020.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Hayashi K, Sasabuchi Y, Matsui H, Nakajima M, Ohbe H, Ono K, et al. Clinical effect of the acrylonitrile-Co-methallyl sulfonate surface-treated membrane as a cytokine adsorption therapy for sepsis due to acute panperitonitis: a retrospective cohort study. Blood Purif. 2020;49:364–71. https://doi.org/10.1159/000504560.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Kobashi S, Maruhashi T, Nakamura T, Hatabayashi E, Kon A. The 28-day survival rates of two cytokine-adsorbing hemofilters for continuous renal replacement therapy: a single-center retrospective comparative study. Acute Med Surg. 2019;6:60–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/ams2.382.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Doi K, Iwagami M, Yoshida E, Marshall MR. Associations of polyethylenimine-coated AN69ST membrane in continuous renal replacement therapy with the intensive care outcomes: observations from a claims database from Japan. Blood Purif. 2017;44:184–92. https://doi.org/10.1159/000476052.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Tanaka A, Inaguma D, Nakamura T, Watanabe Y, Ito E, Kamegai N, et al. Effect of continuous hemodiafiltration using an AN69ST membrane in patients with sepsis. Ren Replace Ther. 2017;3:1–6.CrossRef

37.

Shibata M, Miyamoto K, Kato S. Comparison of the circulatory effects of continuous renal replacement therapy using AN69ST and polysulfone membranes in septic shock patients: A retrospective observational study. Ther Apher Dial. 2020;24:561–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-9987.13462.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Comparison of the cytokine adsorption ability in continuous renal replacement therapy using polyethyleneimine-coated polyacrylonitrile (AN69ST) or polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) hemofilters: a pilot single-center open-label randomized control trial
verfasst von: Yoshihiko Nakamura
Hiroki Hatomoto
Shintaro Yamasaki
Kazuya Yamauchi
Fumiaki Kiyomi
Kota Hoshino
Yasumasa Kawano
Takafumi Nakano
Takehiro Hasegawa
Hiroyasu Ishikura
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2023
Verlag: BioMed Central
Erschienen in: European Journal of Medical Research / Ausgabe 1/2023
Elektronische ISSN: 2047-783X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40001-023-01184-6

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Comparison of the cytokine adsorption ability in continuous renal replacement therapy using polyethyleneimine-coated polyacrylonitrile (AN69ST) or polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) hemofilters: a pilot single-center open-label randomized control trial

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Supplementary Information

Publisher's Note

Background

Methods

Trial design and patients

Interventions and procedures

Data and sample collection

Outcomes

Statistical analyses

Results

Patient baseline characteristics

Primary outcomes

Secondary outcomes

Safety and feasibility outcomes

Discussion

Strengths and limitations

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Declarations

Competing interests

Publisher's Note

Supplementary Information

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Supplementary Information

Publisher's Note

Background

Methods

Trial design and patients

Interventions and procedures

Data and sample collection

Outcomes

Statistical analyses

Results

Patient baseline characteristics

Primary outcomes

Secondary outcomes

Safety and feasibility outcomes

Discussion

Strengths and limitations

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Competing interests

Publisher's Note

Supplementary Information

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2023

FANCD2 as a novel prognostic biomarker correlated with immune and drug therapy in Hepatitis B-related hepatocellular carcinoma

Early urate-lowering therapy in gouty arthritis with acute flares: a double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial

Correction: Effects of metformin therapy on HMGB1 levels in rheumatoid arthritis patients

Effects of regorafenib on the mononuclear/phagocyte system and how these contribute to the inhibition of colorectal tumors in mice

Normal thyroid stimulating hormone is associated with all-cause mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention

Extracellular vesicles derived from endothelial cells modulate macrophage phenotype in vitro