CClinicalTrials.gg
SuspendedNCT04742764DECRISSUpdated Apr 20, 2023

Extracorporal Cytokin Removal in Septic Shock: a Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Clinical Trial

A Phase 3 interventional study of Standard medical therapy and Standard medical therapy plus cytokine removal treatment using Cytosorb, with the adsorber changed in every 12 hours in Septic Shock, sponsored by University of Pecs. Suspended at 1 site in Hungary. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2023-04-20.

Sponsored by University of Pecs · Phase 3, Interventional, and Treatment

Why this study was suspended
The human resources required to start enrollment were not available anymore.
Phase
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
135
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 80 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Sepsis and septic shock have mortality rates between 20-50%. When standard therapeutic measures fail to improve patients' condition, additional therapeutic alternatives are applied to reduce morbidity and mortality. One of the most recent alternatives is extracorporeal cytokine hemoadsorption. One of the most tested devices is CytoSorb, however, there are a lot of open questions, such timing, dosing and of course its overall efficacy. This study aims to compare the efficacy of standard medical therapy (Group A, SMT) and continuous extracorporeal cytokine removal with CytoSorb therapy in patients with early refractory septic shock. Furthermore, we compare the dosing of CytoSorb adsorber device - as the cartridge will be changed in every (12 Group B) or 24 hours (Group C).

02

Conditions studied

  • Septic Shock

Keywords

  • sepsis, septic shock, cytosorb, cytokine removal
03

In context

Shock, Septic

862 studies on the registry are indexed under Shock, Septic; 207 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 135 is above the median of 80 across 530 interventional studies indexed under Shock, Septic.

Browse Shock, Septic studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Pecs is the lead sponsor of 100 studies on the registry; 24 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Septic shock as defined by the Sepsis-3 criteria
  • Septic shock both medical or surgical ethiology (except for re-operation)
  • APACHE > 25
  • Mechanical ventilation
  • Norepinephrine requirement ≥0.4 µg/kg/min for at least 30 minutes, when hypovolemia is highly unlikely as indicated by invasive hemodynamic measurements assessed by the attending physician
  • Invasive hemodynamic monitoring to determine cardiac output and derived variables
  • Procalcitonin level ≥ 10 ng/ml
  • Inclusion within 6 - 24 hours after the onset of vasopressor need and after all standard therapeutic measures have been implemented without clinical improvement (i.e.: the shock is considered refractory)

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Patients under 18 years and over 80
  • Lack of health insurance
  • Pregnancy
  • Standard guideline-based medical treatment not exhausted (detailed below at 3.6) standard medical therapy)
  • End stage organ failure
  • New York Heart Association Class IV.
  • Chronic renal failure with eGFR \< 15 ml/min/1,73 m2
  • End-stage liver disease (MELD score >30, Child-Pugh score Class C
  • Unlikely survival for 24 hours according to the attending physician
  • Acute onset of hemato-oncological illness
  • Post cardiopulmonary resuscitation care
  • Re-operation in context with the septic insult
  • Immunosuppression
  • systemic steroid therapy (>10 mg prednisolon/day)
  • immunosuppressive agents (i.e.: methotrexate, azathioprine, cyclosporin, tacrolimus, cyclophosphamide)
  • Human immunodeficiency virus infection (active AIDS): HIV-VL > 50 copies/mL
  • Patients with transplanted vital organs
  • Thrombocytopenia (\<20.000/ml)
  • More than 10%-of body surface area with a third-degree burn
  • Acute coronary syndrome
05

Study design

Phase
Phase 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
135 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Group A

    Patients randomized to standard medical therapy.

    Combination Product: Standard medical therapy

  • Active comparator
    Group B

    Patients randomized to cytokine removal therapy with Cytosorb, with the adsorber device changed in every 12 hours.

    Device: Standard medical therapy plus cytokine removal treatment using Cytosorb, with the adsorber changed in every 12 hours

  • Active comparator
    Group C

    Patients randomized to cytokine removal therapy with Cytosorb, with the adsorber device changed in every 24 hours.

    Device: Standard medical therapy plus cytokine removal treatment using Cytosorb, with the adsorber changed in every 24 hours

Interventions

  • Combination productStandard medical therapy

    Standard medical therapy (according to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign) will include standard monitoring (pulseoximetry, 5-lead ECG, continuous invasive blood pressure monitoring, central venous cannulation and 24 with PiCCO-technology. Norepinephrine as a vasopressor and dobutamine - if needed - as an inotrope will be administered by the attending physician.

  • DeviceStandard medical therapy plus cytokine removal treatment using Cytosorb, with the adsorber changed in every 12 hours

    Standard medical therapy, as discussed above will be applied. Furthermore, Cytosorb will be administered as soon as it is possible after randomization but not later than 2 hour (start of the treatment, T0). In a blood pump circuit in pre-haemofilter position, using a kidney replacement device of Fresenius Multifiltrate as a solo therapy or in combination with renal replacement therapy. It will be run in CVVHD, CVVHDF or CVVH mode with a 150 and 200 ml/min blood flow. Anticoagulation will be applied intravenously with heparin, low molecular weight heparin or citrate. The aim of the pump flow rate will be 100-400 mL/min, and the flow rate will be recorded. Possible shock reversal will be assessed by the physician attending. Adsorber cartridges will be changed in every 12 hours. End of the study period (Te): 12 hours after shock reversal, death of the patient, or maximum of five days, whichever happens first.

  • DeviceStandard medical therapy plus cytokine removal treatment using Cytosorb, with the adsorber changed in every 24 hours

    The standard medical therapy and method of Cytosorb treatment as detailed above will be applied. Adsorber cartridges will be changed in every 24 hours.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Shock reversal

    Proportion of patients achieving shock reversal, defined as follows: no need (or minimal need, meaning max. the 10% of the maximum dose) of vasopressore for 3 hours, with haemodynamic measurements, and arterial, central venous blood gas analysis, arterial lactate level measurement, venous and arterial pCO2-gap and O2 saturation measurements to confirm cardiorespiratory stability

    Time frame: At the time of shock reversal assessed up to 5 days

  2. Time to shock reversal

    The time from the start of the treatment (T0) until shock reversal

    Time frame: From the start of the treatment until shock reversal assessed up to 5 days

Secondary outcomes

  1. Procalcitonine level

    Absolute level of procalcitonine

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  2. Change in procalcitonine level

    Change in procalcitonine level from the start of the treatment until the end of the study period

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  3. Interleukin-6 level

    Absolute level of interleukin-6

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  4. Change in interleukin-6 level

    Change in interleukin-6 level from the start of the treatment until the end of the study period

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  5. C-reactive protein level

    Absolute level of C-reactive protein

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  6. Change in C-reactive protein level

    Change in C-reactive protein level from the start of the treatment until the end of the study period

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  7. Interleukin-1 level

    Absolute level of interleukin-1

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  8. Change in interleukin-1 level

    Change in interleukin-1 level from the start of the treatment until the end of the study period

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  9. Interleukin-1ra level

    Absolute level of interleukin-1ra

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  10. Change in interleukin-1ra level

    Change in interleukin-1ra level from the start of the treatment until the end of the study period

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  11. Interleukin-8 level

    Absolute level of interleukin-8

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  12. Change in interleukin-8 level

    Change in interleukin-8 level from the start of the treatment until the end of the study period

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  13. Interleukin-10 level

    Absolute level of interleukin-10

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  14. Change in interleukin-10 level

    Change in interleukin-10 level from the start of the treatment until the end of the study period

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  15. Tumor necrosis factor alpha level

    Absolute level of tumor necrosis factor alpha

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  16. Change in tumor necrosis factor alpha level

    Change in tumor necrosis factor alpha level from the start of the treatment until the end of the study period

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  17. Syndecan-1 level

    Absolute level of syndecan-1

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  18. Change in syndecan-1 level

    Change in syndecan-1 level from the start of the treatment until the end of the study period

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  19. Heparan sulphate level

    Absolute level of heparan sulphate

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  20. Change in heparan sulphate level

    Change in heparan sulphate level from the start of the treatment until the end of the study period

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  21. Arterial lactate levels

    Absolute level of arterial lactate levels

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  22. Change in arterial lactate levels level

    Change in arterial lactate level from the start of the treatment until the end of the study period

    Time frame: 0, 6, 12,24 hours after the start of the treatment, then daily until the end of study period assessed up to 90 +/- 7 days at second follow-up visit

  23. Change in SOFA score

    Change in SOFA score from the start of the treatment until the end of the study period

    Time frame: From the start of the treatment until the end of the treatment assessed up to 5 days

  24. Change in extravascular lung water (EVLW)

    Change in extravascular lung water (EVLW) from the start of the treatment until the end of the study period

    Time frame: From the start of the treatment until the end of the treatment assessed up to 5 days

  25. Duration of mechanical ventilation

    Duration of mechanical ventilation given in days

    Time frame: From the start of the treatment until the end of the treatment assessed up to 5 days

  26. Duration of catecholamine requirement

    Duration of catecholamine requirement given in days

    Time frame: From the start of the catecholamine requirement until the end of the catecholamine requirement assessed up to 5 days

  27. Duration of renal replacement therapy

    Duration of renal replacement therapy given in days

    Time frame: From the start of the renal replacement therapy requirement until the end of the renal replacement therapy requirement assessed up to 90+/-7 days at the second follow-up visit

  28. Need for dialysis

    Rate of patients, who require dialysis

    Time frame: day 28±7, day 90±7

  29. Length of internsive care unit stay

    Length of intensive care unit stay given in days

    Time frame: From admission to intensive care unit until the end of intensive care unit assessed at study completion an avarage of 90 days

  30. Length of hospital stay

    Length of hospital stay given in days

    Time frame: From admission to the hospital until the end of hospital stay assessed at study completion an avarage of 90 days

  31. Survival

    Rate of surviving patients

    Time frame: Rate if surviving patients assessed at death, or study completion which ever happens first, up to 90 +/-7 days

  32. Adverse events

    Rate of patients experiencing adverse events, or device deficiencies

    Time frame: Recorded at the occurrance of adverse events, and study completion up to 90 +/- 7 days

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Institute for Translational Medicine, University of Pécs
    Pécs, 7624, Hungary
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Sogayar AM, Machado FR, Rea-Neto A, Dornas A, Grion CM, Lobo SM, Tura BR, Silva CL, Cal RG, Beer I, Michels V, Safi J, Kayath M, Silva E; Costs Study Group - Latin American Sepsis Institute. A multicentre, prospective study to evaluate costs of septic patients in Brazilian intensive care units. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(5):425-34. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200826050-00006. PubMed 18429658 ↗
  • Adrie C, Alberti C, Chaix-Couturier C, Azoulay E, De Lassence A, Cohen Y, Meshaka P, Cheval C, Thuong M, Troche G, Garrouste-Orgeas M, Timsit JF. Epidemiology and economic evaluation of severe sepsis in France: age, severity, infection site, and place of acquisition (community, hospital, or intensive care unit) as determinants of workload and cost. J Crit Care. 2005 Mar;20(1):46-58. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2004.10.005. PubMed 16015516 ↗
  • Khwannimit B, Bhurayanontachai R. The direct costs of intensive care management and risk factors for financial burden of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. J Crit Care. 2015 Oct;30(5):929-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2015.05.011. Epub 2015 May 20. PubMed 26051981 ↗
  • Iskander KN, Osuchowski MF, Stearns-Kurosawa DJ, Kurosawa S, Stepien D, Valentine C, Remick DG. Sepsis: multiple abnormalities, heterogeneous responses, and evolving understanding. Physiol Rev. 2013 Jul;93(3):1247-88. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00037.2012. PubMed 23899564 ↗
  • Kwan A, Hubank M, Rashid A, Klein N, Peters MJ. Transcriptional instability during evolving sepsis may limit biomarker based risk stratification. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e60501. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060501. Epub 2013 Mar 27. PubMed 23544148 ↗
  • Akira S, Uematsu S, Takeuchi O. Pathogen recognition and innate immunity. Cell. 2006 Feb 24;124(4):783-801. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.02.015. PubMed 16497588 ↗
  • Hotchkiss RS, Monneret G, Payen D. Sepsis-induced immunosuppression: from cellular dysfunctions to immunotherapy. Nat Rev Immunol. 2013 Dec;13(12):862-74. doi: 10.1038/nri3552. Epub 2013 Nov 15. PubMed 24232462 ↗
  • Schulte W, Bernhagen J, Bucala R. Cytokines in sepsis: potent immunoregulators and potential therapeutic targets--an updated view. Mediators Inflamm. 2013;2013:165974. doi: 10.1155/2013/165974. Epub 2013 Jun 18. PubMed 23853427 ↗
  • Venet F, Lukaszewicz AC, Payen D, Hotchkiss R, Monneret G. Monitoring the immune response in sepsis: a rational approach to administration of immunoadjuvant therapies. Curr Opin Immunol. 2013 Aug;25(4):477-83. doi: 10.1016/j.coi.2013.05.006. Epub 2013 May 28. PubMed 23725873 ↗
  • Sharawy N. Vasoplegia in septic shock: do we really fight the right enemy? J Crit Care. 2014 Feb;29(1):83-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2013.08.021. Epub 2013 Oct 4. PubMed 24095623 ↗
  • Laszlo I, Trasy D, Molnar Z, Fazakas J. Sepsis: From Pathophysiology to Individualized Patient Care. J Immunol Res. 2015;2015:510436. doi: 10.1155/2015/510436. Epub 2015 Jul 15. PubMed 26258150 ↗
  • Bellomo R, Baldwin I, Ronco C. Extracorporeal blood purification therapy for sepsis and systemic inflammation: its biological rationale. Contrib Nephrol. 2001;(132):367-74. doi: 10.1159/000060105. PubMed 11395904 ↗
  • Cruz DN, Antonelli M, Fumagalli R, Foltran F, Brienza N, Donati A, Malcangi V, Petrini F, Volta G, Bobbio Pallavicini FM, Rottoli F, Giunta F, Ronco C. Early use of polymyxin B hemoperfusion in abdominal septic shock: the EUPHAS randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009 Jun 17;301(23):2445-52. doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.856. PubMed 19531784 ↗
  • Kreymann KG, de Heer G, Nierhaus A, Kluge S. Use of polyclonal immunoglobulins as adjunctive therapy for sepsis or septic shock. Crit Care Med. 2007 Dec;35(12):2677-85. PubMed 18074464 ↗
  • Basu R, Pathak S, Goyal J, Chaudhry R, Goel RB, Barwal A. Use of a novel hemoadsorption device for cytokine removal as adjuvant therapy in a patient with septic shock with multi-organ dysfunction: A case study. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2014 Dec;18(12):822-4. doi: 10.4103/0972-5229.146321. PubMed 25538418 ↗
  • Bedina, E., et al., Hemoadsorption by cytosorb® in septic shock with acute kidney injury: A case series. Blood Purification, 2018. 46(3): p. 183-184.
  • Bracht, H., et al., Pattern of cytokine removal using an adsorption column CytoSorb® during severe Candia albicans induced septic shock. Infection, Supplement, 2013. 41(1): p. S64-S65.
  • Kellum JA, Venkataraman R, Powner D, Elder M, Hergenroeder G, Carter M. Feasibility study of cytokine removal by hemoadsorption in brain-dead humans. Crit Care Med. 2008 Jan;36(1):268-72. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000291646.34815.BB. PubMed 18090355 ↗
  • Namas RA, Namas R, Lagoa C, Barclay D, Mi Q, Zamora R, Peng Z, Wen X, Fedorchak MV, Valenti IE, Federspiel WJ, Kellum JA, Vodovotz Y. Hemoadsorption reprograms inflammation in experimental gram-negative septic peritonitis: insights from in vivo and in silico studies. Mol Med. 2012 Dec 20;18(1):1366-74. doi: 10.2119/molmed.2012.00106. PubMed 22751621 ↗
  • Peng ZY, Carter MJ, Kellum JA. Effects of hemoadsorption on cytokine removal and short-term survival in septic rats. Crit Care Med. 2008 May;36(5):1573-7. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e318170b9a7. PubMed 18434884 ↗
  • Peng ZY, Wang HZ, Carter MJ, Dileo MV, Bishop JV, Zhou FH, Wen XY, Rimmele T, Singbartl K, Federspiel WJ, Clermont G, Kellum JA. Acute removal of common sepsis mediators does not explain the effects of extracorporeal blood purification in experimental sepsis. Kidney Int. 2012 Feb;81(4):363-9. doi: 10.1038/ki.2011.320. Epub 2011 Sep 14. PubMed 21918497 ↗
  • Friesecke S, Trager K, Schittek GA, Molnar Z, Bach F, Kogelmann K, Bogdanski R, Weyland A, Nierhaus A, Nestler F, Olboeter D, Tomescu D, Jacob D, Haake H, Grigoryev E, Nitsch M, Baumann A, Quintel M, Schott M, Kielstein JT, Meier-Hellmann A, Born F, Schumacher U, Singer M, Kellum J, Brunkhorst FM. International registry on the use of the CytoSorb(R) adsorber in ICU patients : Study protocol and preliminary results. Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed. 2019 Nov;114(8):699-707. doi: 10.1007/s00063-017-0342-5. Epub 2017 Sep 4. PubMed 28871441 ↗
  • 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 Sep;20(3):252-259. doi: 10.1007/s10047-017-0967-4. Epub 2017 Jun 6. PubMed 28589286 ↗
  • Kogelmann K, Jarczak D, Scheller M, Druner M. Hemoadsorption by CytoSorb in septic patients: a case series. Crit Care. 2017 Mar 27;21(1):74. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1662-9. PubMed 28343448 ↗
  • Hawchar F, Laszlo I, Oveges N, Trasy D, Ondrik Z, Molnar Z. Extracorporeal cytokine adsorption in septic shock: A proof of concept randomized, controlled pilot study. J Crit Care. 2019 Feb;49:172-178. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.11.003. Epub 2018 Nov 10. PubMed 30448517 ↗
  • Brouwer WP, Duran S, Kuijper M, Ince C. Hemoadsorption with CytoSorb shows a decreased observed versus expected 28-day all-cause mortality in ICU patients with septic shock: a propensity-score-weighted retrospective study. Crit Care. 2019 Sep 18;23(1):317. doi: 10.1186/s13054-019-2588-1. PubMed 31533846 ↗
  • Öveges N, L.s.I., Forgács M, et al, Procalcitonin elimination during cytokine adsorption therapy in septic shock: a spin-off study of the ACESS trial. Crit Care, 2017. 21:383.
  • Singer M, Deutschman CS, Seymour CW, Shankar-Hari M, Annane D, Bauer M, Bellomo R, Bernard GR, Chiche JD, Coopersmith CM, Hotchkiss RS, Levy MM, Marshall JC, Martin GS, Opal SM, Rubenfeld GD, van der Poll T, Vincent JL, Angus DC. The Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3). JAMA. 2016 Feb 23;315(8):801-10. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0287. PubMed 26903338 ↗
  • Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE. APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985 Oct;13(10):818-29. PubMed 3928249 ↗
  • Amendola A, Sberna G, Forbici F, Abbate I, Lorenzini P, Pinnetti C, Antinori A, Capobianchi MR. The dual-target approach in viral HIV-1 viremia testing: An added value to virological monitoring? PLoS One. 2020 Feb 5;15(2):e0228192. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228192. eCollection 2020. Erratum In: PLoS One. 2020 Feb 27;15(2):e0230018. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230018. PubMed 32023284 ↗
  • Rhodes A, Evans LE, Alhazzani W, Levy MM, Antonelli M, Ferrer R, Kumar A, Sevransky JE, Sprung CL, Nunnally ME, Rochwerg B, Rubenfeld GD, Angus DC, Annane D, Beale RJ, Bellinghan GJ, Bernard GR, Chiche JD, Coopersmith C, De Backer DP, French CJ, Fujishima S, Gerlach H, Hidalgo JL, Hollenberg SM, Jones AE, Karnad DR, Kleinpell RM, Koh Y, Lisboa TC, Machado FR, Marini JJ, Marshall JC, Mazuski JE, McIntyre LA, McLean AS, Mehta S, Moreno RP, Myburgh J, Navalesi P, Nishida O, Osborn TM, Perner A, Plunkett CM, Ranieri M, Schorr CA, Seckel MA, Seymour CW, Shieh L, Shukri KA, Simpson SQ, Singer M, Thompson BT, Townsend SR, Van der Poll T, Vincent JL, Wiersinga WJ, Zimmerman JL, Dellinger RP. Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016. Intensive Care Med. 2017 Mar;43(3):304-377. doi: 10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6. Epub 2017 Jan 18. PubMed 28101605 ↗
  • Khanna A, English SW, Wang XS, Ham K, Tumlin J, Szerlip H, Busse LW, Altaweel L, Albertson TE, Mackey C, McCurdy MT, Boldt DW, Chock S, Young PJ, Krell K, Wunderink RG, Ostermann M, Murugan R, Gong MN, Panwar R, Hastbacka J, Favory R, Venkatesh B, Thompson BT, Bellomo R, Jensen J, Kroll S, Chawla LS, Tidmarsh GF, Deane AM; ATHOS-3 Investigators. Angiotensin II for the Treatment of Vasodilatory Shock. N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 3;377(5):419-430. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1704154. Epub 2017 May 21. PubMed 28528561 ↗
  • Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gotzsche PC, Krleza-Jeric K, Hrobjartsson A, Mann H, Dickersin K, Berlin JA, Dore CJ, Parulekar WR, Summerskill WS, Groves T, Schulz KF, Sox HC, Rockhold FW, Rennie D, Moher D. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013 Feb 5;158(3):200-7. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583. PubMed 23295957 ↗
  • Kogelmann K, Scheller M, Druner M, Jarczak D. Use of hemoadsorption in sepsis-associated ECMO-dependent severe ARDS: A case series. J Intensive Care Soc. 2020 May;21(2):183-190. doi: 10.1177/1751143718818992. Epub 2019 Jan 8. PubMed 32489416 ↗
  • Wani SJ, Mufti SA, Jan RA, Shah SU, Qadri SM, Khan UH, Bagdadi F, Mehfooz N, Koul PA. Combination of vitamin C, thiamine and hydrocortisone added to standard treatment in the management of sepsis: results from an open label randomised controlled clinical trial and a review of the literature. Infect Dis (Lond). 2020 Apr;52(4):271-278. doi: 10.1080/23744235.2020.1718200. Epub 2020 Jan 28. PubMed 31990246 ↗
  • ARISE Investigators; ANZICS Clinical Trials Group; Peake SL, Delaney A, Bailey M, Bellomo R, Cameron PA, Cooper DJ, Higgins AM, Holdgate A, Howe BD, Webb SA, Williams P. Goal-directed resuscitation for patients with early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 16;371(16):1496-506. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1404380. Epub 2014 Oct 1. PubMed 25272316 ↗
  • ProCESS Investigators; Yealy DM, Kellum JA, Huang DT, Barnato AE, Weissfeld LA, Pike F, Terndrup T, Wang HE, Hou PC, LoVecchio F, Filbin MR, Shapiro NI, Angus DC. A randomized trial of protocol-based care for early septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014 May 1;370(18):1683-93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1401602. Epub 2014 Mar 18. PubMed 24635773 ↗
  • Peake SL, Bailey M, Bellomo R, Cameron PA, Cross A, Delaney A, Finfer S, Higgins A, Jones DA, Myburgh JA, Syres GA, Webb SA, Williams P; ARISE Investigators, for the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials Group. Australasian resuscitation of sepsis evaluation (ARISE): A multi-centre, prospective, inception cohort study. Resuscitation. 2009 Jul;80(7):811-8. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.03.008. Epub 2009 May 20. PubMed 19467755 ↗
  • Girbes ARJ, de Grooth HJ. Time to stop randomized and large pragmatic trials for intensive care medicine syndromes: the case of sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome. J Thorac Dis. 2020 Feb;12(Suppl 1):S101-S109. doi: 10.21037/jtd.2019.10.36. PubMed 32148932 ↗
  • Vincent JL. We should abandon randomized controlled trials in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2010 Oct;38(10 Suppl):S534-8. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181f208ac. PubMed 21164394 ↗
  • Jozwiak M, Teboul JL, Monnet X. Extravascular lung water in critical care: recent advances and clinical applications. Ann Intensive Care. 2015 Dec;5(1):38. doi: 10.1186/s13613-015-0081-9. Epub 2015 Nov 6. PubMed 26546321 ↗
  • David S, Thamm K, Schmidt BMW, Falk CS, Kielstein JT. Effect of extracorporeal cytokine removal on vascular barrier function in a septic shock patient. J Intensive Care. 2017 Jan 21;5:12. doi: 10.1186/s40560-017-0208-1. eCollection 2017. PubMed 28127437 ↗
  • Riedel S. Procalcitonin and the role of biomarkers in the diagnosis and management of sepsis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2012 Jul;73(3):221-7. doi: 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.05.002. PubMed 22704255 ↗
  • Nylen ES, Whang KT, Snider RH Jr, Steinwald PM, White JC, Becker KL. Mortality is increased by procalcitonin and decreased by an antiserum reactive to procalcitonin in experimental sepsis. Crit Care Med. 1998 Jun;26(6):1001-6. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199806000-00015. PubMed 9635646 ↗
  • Schadler D, Pausch C, Heise D, Meier-Hellmann A, Brederlau J, Weiler N, Marx G, Putensen C, Spies C, Jorres A, Quintel M, Engel C, Kellum JA, Kuhlmann MK. The effect of a novel extracorporeal cytokine hemoadsorption device on IL-6 elimination in septic patients: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2017 Oct 30;12(10):e0187015. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0187015. eCollection 2017. PubMed 29084247 ↗
  • Trasy D, Tanczos K, Nemeth M, Hankovszky P, Lovas A, Mikor A, Laszlo I, Hajdu E, Osztroluczki A, Fazakas J, Molnar Z; EProK study group. Early procalcitonin kinetics and appropriateness of empirical antimicrobial therapy in critically ill patients: A prospective observational study. J Crit Care. 2016 Aug;34:50-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.04.007. Epub 2016 Apr 13. PubMed 27288610 ↗
  • Kanjo A, Molnar Z, Zadori N, Gede N, Eross B, Szako L, Kiss T, Marton Z, Malbrain MLNG, Szuldrzynski K, Szrama J, Kusza K, Kogelmann K, Hegyi P. Dosing of Extracorporeal Cytokine Removal In Septic Shock (DECRISS): protocol of a prospective, randomised, adaptive, multicentre clinical trial. BMJ Open. 2021 Aug 26;11(8):e050464. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-050464. PubMed 34446497 ↗

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Apr 20, 2023, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04742764
Lead sponsor
University of Pecs
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Feb 8, 2021
Start date
Jan 1, 2024 (estimated)
Primary completion
Oct 31, 2026 (estimated)
Completion
Oct 31, 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Apr 20, 2023

Study contacts

Péter Hegyi, MD, PhD, DSc
principal investigator · Insitute for Translational Medicine, University of Pécs, Medical School, Pécs, Hungary

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is suspended, as verified in Apr 2023. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion