• R Bellomo, P M Honoré, J Matson, C Ronco, and J Winchester.
• Department of Intensive Care and Department of Medicine, Austin Hospital and Melbourne University, Melbourne - Australia. rinaldo.bellomo@austin.org.au
• Int J Artif Organs. 2005 May 1; 28 (5): 450-8.

BackgroundExtracorporeal blood purification treatment (EBT) methods have been used in the treatment of experimental and human SIRS/Sepsis in a variety of settings and with variable reports of efficacy and safety. Their role in the management of SIRS/Sepsis remains controversial.ObjectivesTo develop consensus statements regarding important aspects of research, practice and technical management concerning EBT.MethodsSystematic review of published study. Evidence-based grading of information available. Consensus development regarding fundamental questions about EBT.ResultsConsensus was achieved on all questions posed during the conference. It was agreed that there is currently a clear biological rational for EBT in SIRS and Sepsis. It was agreed that conventional CVVH has sufficiently been shown not to be effective in SIRS/Sepsis in the absence of concomitant ARF and that other therapies such as plasmapheresis or high-volume hemofiltration or coupled plasma filtration adsorption appear more promising and should be tested in multicentre randomized controlled trials. Patients with ARF and SIRS/Sepsis should be treated differently from those with ARF alone even though current practice in this field is not well known. Patients with refractory septic shock should be considered for EBT. Appropriate end points for clinical trials can be defined and chosen according to the goals of the trial. Different technologies exist for EBT and better understanding of the merits and safety of each is needed as well as better standardization of methodology and dose.ConclusionsBroad consensus can be achieved on several aspects of EBT and can be used to inform clinical practice and to help guide the establishment of a future research agenda.

13 keywords...

hide…