Hemofiltration With the Cascade System in an Experimental Porcine Model of Septic Shock

• Published in: Therapeutic apheresis and dialysis Vol. 13; no. 1; pp. 63 - 70
• Main Authors: Rimmelé, Thomas, Wey, Pierre-François, Bernard, Nicolas, Monchi, Mehran, Semenzato, Nicolas, Benatir, Farida, Boselli, Emmanuel, Etienne, Jérôme, Goudable, Joëlle, Chassard, Dominique, Bricca, Giampiero, Allaouchiche, Bernard
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Melbourne, Australia Blackwell Publishing Asia 01.02.2009
• Subjects: Acidosis, Lactic - etiology; Adrenergic Agonists - administration & dosage; Animal model; Animals; Blood Pressure; Cascade hemofiltration; Colloids - administration & dosage; Cytokine; Disease Models, Animal; Epinephrine - administration & dosage; Female; Hemofiltration - adverse effects; Hemofiltration - methods; High volume hemofiltration; Inflammation Mediators - metabolism; Random Allocation; Septic shock; Severity of Illness Index; Shock, Septic - therapy; Swine
• ISSN: 1744-9979; 1744-9987
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-9987.2009.00655.x

:  High‐volume hemofiltration (HVHF) has been suggested as an adjuvant treatment of septic shock because of its capacities to remove inflammatory mediators from blood. Nevertheless, HVHF presents some important drawbacks, such as the depletion of low molecular weight molecules (nutriments, vitamins, trace elements and antibiotics) due to the high ultrafiltration rate, or the significant financial cost and nursing workload due to the frequent changes of large amounts of expensive sterile substitution fluids. A new hemofiltration system called “Cascade” has been developed, allowing very high ultrafiltration rates (120 mL/kg/h) limiting these drawbacks by using a special extracorporeal circuit. The objective of this study was to assess the technical feasibility of the Cascade system and to compare its hemodynamic impact to that of the standard HVHF system. Twenty sepsis‐induced pigs were randomized in two groups: one group was hemofiltered with the standard HVHF system and the other with the Cascade system during a six‐hour session. No technical problems were observed with the Cascade system during the experiment. At the end of the experiment, colloid requirements (989 ± 355 mL vs. 1913 ± 538 mL, P = 0.006), epinephrine requirements (0.82 ± 0.42 mg vs. 3.27 ± 3.02 mg, P < 0.001), lactic acidosis (pH = 7.33 ± 0.08 vs. 7.10 ± 0.07, P < 0.001) and mean pulmonary arterial pressure were less pronounced in the Cascade group. These results suggest that Cascade hemofiltration is technically feasible and safe. Moreover, compared with standard HVHF, it can reduce the severity of porcine septic shock.