Pro/con clinical debate: Is high-volume hemofiltration beneficial in the treatment of septic shock?
AUTOR(ES)
Reiter, Karl
FONTE
BioMed Central
RESUMO
Although there have been exciting advances in the management of sepsis and septic shock, mortality still remains high. Recent data suggest that high-volume hemofiltration (HVHF) may play a role in these patients. In contrast to the usual rate of hemofiltration, HVHF is felt to be better able to remove the inflammatory mediators associated with sepsis and septic shock. Such an approach is currently incapable of selectively removing specific mediators. This may be a problem when one considers that several mediators may in fact be beneficial. When determining whether HVHF should be instituted in a patient with septic shock, one need remember that its role is far from clear and its usefulness remains the subject of much debate. Although early data is encouraging, it is clear that additional data is required before HVHF becomes standard management. The authors of this pro/con debate, which is based on a clinical scenario, first describe their own position and then respond to their opponent's position.
ACESSO AO ARTIGO
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=137392Documentos Relacionados
- Pro/con clinical debate: Are steroids useful in the management of patients with septic shock?
- Pro/con clinical debate: Hydroxyethylstarches should be avoided in septic patients
- Pro/con clinical debate: Steroids are a key component in the treatment of SARS
- Pro/con clinical debate: High-frequency oscillatory ventilation is better than conventional ventilation for premature infants
- Pro/con clinical debate: Is high-frequency oscillatory ventilation useful in the management of adult patients with respiratory failure?
