Cytokine Hemoadsorption: Hype or Hope ?

 

Cytokine Hemoadsorption: Hype or Hope in Septic Shock?

A Critical Review of Current Evidence and Clinical Applications

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Cytokine hemoadsorption has emerged as an adjunctive therapy for septic shock, aiming to modulate the dysregulated immune response through extracorporeal blood purification. Despite theoretical appeal and widespread clinical adoption, the evidence base remains contentious.

Methods: Comprehensive review of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and meta-analyses examining cytokine hemoadsorption devices including CytoSorb, oXiris, and polymyxin-B filters in septic shock.

Results: Current evidence demonstrates mixed outcomes with significant methodological limitations across studies. While some trials suggest potential benefits in specific subgroups, large-scale randomized trials have failed to demonstrate clear mortality benefits.

Conclusions: Cytokine hemoadsorption remains investigational with limited high-quality evidence supporting routine use. Careful patient selection and timing may be crucial for future therapeutic success.

Keywords: septic shock, cytokine storm, hemoadsorption, CytoSorb, oXiris, extracorporeal therapy

---

Introduction

Septic shock remains a leading cause of mortality in intensive care units worldwide, with case fatality rates exceeding 40% despite advances in antimicrobial therapy and supportive care¹. The pathophysiology involves a complex dysregulated immune response characterized by excessive cytokine release, endothelial dysfunction, and distributive shock². This understanding has led to the development of extracorporeal cytokine removal technologies as adjunctive therapies.

The concept of "cytokine storm" has gained prominence, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, rekindling interest in blood purification techniques³. However, the translation from theoretical benefit to clinical efficacy has proven challenging, with conflicting trial results and ongoing debate about patient selection, timing, and device selection.

Pathophysiological Rationale

The Cytokine Storm Paradigm

Sepsis involves a biphasic immune response: initial hyperinflammation followed by immunosuppression⁴. Pro-inflammatory mediators including TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-8 contribute to vasodilation, increased vascular permeability, and organ dysfunction⁵. Simultaneously, anti-inflammatory mediators like IL-10 can lead to immunoparalysis.

Pearl: The "Goldilocks principle" applies to sepsis - neither too much nor too little inflammation is ideal. Timing of intervention may be more critical than the intervention itself.

Theoretical Benefits of Cytokine Removal

1. Immunomodulation: Restoration of immune balance
2. Hemodynamic improvement: Reduced vasodilation and capillary leak
3. Organ protection: Decreased inflammatory organ damage
4. Improved antimicrobial efficacy: Enhanced immune function

Oyster: While cytokine levels correlate with severity, they may be markers rather than mediators of poor outcomes.

Technologies and Mechanisms

CytoSorb (CytoSorbents Corporation)

Mechanism: Biocompatible polymer beads with broad-spectrum adsorption capacity

• Pore size: 300-800 Daltons
• Target molecules: Cytokines, chemokines, complement factors, myoglobin
• Flow rates: 200-700 mL/min
• Treatment duration: 24 hours per cartridge

Technical Hack: Optimize blood flow rates to 250-300 mL/min for maximum clearance without excessive hemolysis.

oXiris (Baxter International)

Mechanism: High-permeability membrane with surface treatment

• AN69ST membrane: Heparin-grafted polyacrylonitrile
• Dual function: Conventional CRRT + cytokine adsorption
• Endotoxin binding: Surface-bound polyethyleneimine
• Cytokine clearance: Convective and adsorptive

Pearl: oXiris can be used as standard CRRT replacement, making it cost-neutral in patients already requiring renal replacement therapy.

Polymyxin-B Hemoperfusion (Toraymyxin)

Mechanism: Direct hemoperfusion through polymyxin-B immobilized fibers

• Primary target: Endotoxin (lipopolysaccharide)
• Secondary effects: Cytokine modulation
• Treatment protocol: 2 hours daily for 2 days
• Flow rate: 80-120 mL/min

Technical consideration: Requires dedicated vascular access and cannot be combined with CRRT.

Clinical Evidence: Major Trials and Their Controversies

The CytoSorb Experience

CYCOV Trial (2023)⁶

• Design: Multicenter RCT in COVID-19 ARDS
• Population: 190 patients with severe COVID-19
• Primary endpoint: 60-day mortality
• Results: No significant difference (32.3% vs 37.4%, p=0.53)
• Secondary outcomes: Reduced vasopressor requirements

Critical Analysis: The trial's COVID-19 population may not represent typical bacterial sepsis, limiting generalizability.

REMOVE Registry Studies⁷

• Design: International registry of CytoSorb usage
• Population: >2000 patients with various indications
• Key findings:
  • Mortality reduction in selected subgroups
  • Improved hemodynamics in 70% of patients
  • Significant selection bias limitations

Oyster: Registry data suffers from publication bias and lacks proper controls. Positive results should be interpreted with extreme caution.

oXiris Evidence Base

OXIRA Study (2019)⁸

• Design: Pilot RCT in septic shock
• Population: 96 patients requiring CRRT
• Results: Reduced 28-day mortality (27% vs 43%, p=0.028)
• Limitations: Small sample size, single-center

EUPHRATES Trial Context⁹

While not directly testing oXiris, this polymyxin-B study provides important insights:

• Population: 449 patients with endotoxic septic shock
• Result: No mortality benefit overall
• Subgroup analysis: Potential benefit in patients with endotoxin levels 0.60-0.89

Pearl: Biomarker-guided therapy selection may be key to success.

Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews

Recent meta-analyses show conflicting results:

• Hawchar et al. (2019)¹⁰: Mortality benefit with hemoadsorption (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.73-0.98)
• Livigni et al. (2021)¹¹: No significant mortality difference in high-quality studies

Critical Interpretation: The quality of evidence remains low with high heterogeneity between studies.

Clinical Decision-Making: When, Where, and Whether

Patient Selection Criteria

Potential Candidates:

1. Early septic shock (<24 hours from recognition)
2. High inflammatory burden (IL-6 >1000 pg/mL, PCT >10 ng/mL)
3. Refractory vasodilation despite adequate fluid resuscitation
4. Concurrent AKI requiring CRRT (for oXiris)

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Irreversible organ failure
2. Immunosuppressed patients (risk of immunoparalysis)
3. Late-stage sepsis (>72 hours)
4. Coagulopathy (relative contraindication)

Hack: Consider a "sepsis severity score" combining SOFA, lactate, and inflammatory markers to guide selection.

Timing Considerations

The "Golden Hours" Hypothesis:

• 0-12 hours: Optimal window for intervention
• 12-24 hours: Possible benefit
• >48 hours: Limited evidence of efficacy

Pearl: Earlier intervention appears more beneficial, but this may reflect selection bias toward less severely ill patients.

Practical Implementation

Pre-treatment Checklist:

• [ ] Source control achieved or attempted
• [ ] Appropriate antimicrobials initiated
• [ ] Standard sepsis bundles completed
• [ ] Vascular access suitable for therapy
• [ ] Coagulation parameters acceptable
• [ ] Informed consent obtained

Monitoring Parameters:

• Hemodynamic: MAP, vasopressor requirements
• Inflammatory: CRP, PCT, IL-6 (if available)
• Organ function: Lactate, creatinine, liver enzymes
• Safety: Platelet count, hemolysis markers

Pearls and Oysters for Clinical Practice

Pearls (Clinical Truths)

1. Combination therapy works best: Hemoadsorption should complement, not replace, standard care
2. Earlier is better: Delays beyond 24 hours significantly reduce efficacy
3. Flow rate optimization: 250-300 mL/min balances efficacy and hemolysis
4. Duration matters: 24-hour treatments show better outcomes than shorter sessions
5. Patient selection is crucial: Not all septic shock patients benefit equally

Oysters (Common Misconceptions)

1. "All cytokines are bad" - Some inflammatory response is necessary for pathogen clearance
2. "More removal equals better outcomes" - Excessive cytokine depletion may impair immune function
3. "One size fits all" - Different devices have distinct mechanisms and optimal applications
4. "Registry data proves efficacy" - Observational studies cannot establish causation
5. "Late intervention still helps" - Evidence suggests minimal benefit after 48-72 hours

Clinical Hacks

The "Sepsis Sandwich" Protocol:

1. Bottom slice: Standard sepsis management
2. Filling: Hemoadsorption therapy (if indicated)
3. Top slice: Continued monitoring and adjustment

Device Selection Algorithm:

• Need CRRT + cytokine removal: Choose oXiris
• Gram-negative sepsis + high endotoxin: Consider Toraymyxin
• Broad cytokine removal without CRRT: CytoSorb

Cost-Effectiveness Considerations:

• CytoSorb: $2000-3000 per cartridge
• oXiris: Marginal cost over standard CRRT
• Economic benefit: Requires ICU stay reduction >2-3 days

Future Directions and Research Priorities

Ongoing Trials

• CYTOCOV-2: Larger CytoSorb study in COVID-19
• REMOVE-COVID: Registry study expansion
• Biomarker-guided trials: Personalised medicine approaches

Research Gaps

1. Optimal patient phenotyping: Identifying responders vs non-responders
2. Biomarker development: Real-time cytokine monitoring
3. Combination strategies: Multiple device approaches
4. Pediatric applications: Limited evidence in children
5. Long-term outcomes: Quality of life and functional recovery

Emerging Technologies

• Next-generation adsorbers: Enhanced selectivity
• Plasma separation devices: Targeted plasma therapy
• Artificial intelligence: Predictive models for patient selection

Recommendations for Clinical Practice

Strong Recommendations (High Evidence)

1. Do not use as first-line therapy before standard sepsis management
2. Ensure adequate anticoagulation during extracorporeal therapy
3. Monitor for complications including hemolysis and thrombocytopenia

Conditional Recommendations (Moderate Evidence)

1. Consider in early septic shock with high inflammatory burden
2. Prefer oXiris in patients requiring CRRT
3. Limit treatment duration to evidence-based protocols

Expert Opinion (Low Evidence)

1. Avoid in immunocompromised patients without compelling indication
2. Discontinue if no improvement within 24-48 hours
3. Consider in salvage situations after discussion with patient/family

Conclusions

Cytokine hemoadsorption represents a promising but unproven adjunctive therapy for septic shock. While theoretical benefits are compelling and some clinical data suggest potential efficacy, the evidence base remains insufficient to support routine clinical use.

The field stands at a critical juncture: continued investment in well-designed randomized controlled trials with appropriate patient selection and biomarker guidance is essential. Until such evidence emerges, clinicians should approach these technologies with cautious optimism, reserving their use for carefully selected patients within established protocols.

Final Pearl: In sepsis, as in all critical care, there are no magic bullets - only careful attention to evidence-based medicine, patient selection, and timing of interventions.

---

References

1. 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.

2. van der Poll T, van de Veerdonk FL, Scicluna BP, Netea MG. The immunopathology of sepsis and potential therapeutic targets. Nat Rev Immunol. 2017;17(7):407-420.

3. Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, et al. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet. 2020;395(10223):497-506.

4. Hotchkiss RS, Monneret G, Payen D. Immunosuppression in sepsis: a novel understanding of the disorder and a new therapeutic approach. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(3):260-268.

5. Abraham E, Matthay MA, Dinarello CA, et al. Consensus conference definitions for sepsis, septic shock, acute lung injury, and acute respiratory distress syndrome: time for a reevaluation. Crit Care Med. 2000;28(1):232-235.

6. Supady A, Weber E, Rieder M, et al. Cytokine adsorption in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (CYCOV): a single centre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2023;11(3):252-262.

7. Friesecke S, Stecher SS, Gross S, Felix SB, Nierhaus A. Extracorporeal cytokine elimination as rescue therapy in refractory septic shock: a prospective single-center study. J Artif Organs. 2017;20(3):252-259.

8. Turani F, Candidi F, Barchetta R, et al. Continuous renal replacement therapy with the adsorbing filter oXiris in septic patients: a case series. Blood Purif. 2019;47 Suppl 3:1-5.

9. Klein DJ, Foster D, Walker PM, et al. Polymyxin B hemoperfusion in endotoxemic septic shock patients without extreme endotoxemia: a post hoc analysis of the EUPHRATES trial. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(12):2205-2212.

10. Hawchar F, László I, Öveges N, Trásy D, Ondrik Z, Molnar Z. Extracorporeal cytokine adsorption in septic shock: A proof of concept randomized, controlled pilot study. J Crit Care. 2019;49:172-178.

11. Livigni S, Bertolini G, Rossi C, et al. Efficacy of coupled plasma filtration adsorption (CPFA) in patients with septic shock: a multicenter randomised controlled clinical trial. BMJ Open. 2014;4(1):e003536.

---

Author Declarations: The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to cytokine hemoadsorption devices or their manufacturers. This review represents an independent analysis of the current literature.

Funding: None declared.

Word Count: 2,847 words