Copyright
©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Crit Care Med. Jan 31, 2020; 9(1): 1-12
Published online Jan 31, 2020. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v9.i1.1
Published online Jan 31, 2020. doi: 10.5492/wjccm.v9.i1.1
Table 2 CytoSorb scores and number of Cytosorb® devices used (survivor vs non-survivor group)
| CS score | Survivor (n) | CS score (n, number of devices used) | Non-survivor (n) | CS score (n, number of devices used) |
| < 8 | 0 | - | 0 | - |
| 8-13 | 35 | 10 (n = 1, 1) | 21 | 11 (n = 1, 1) |
| 11 (n = 7, 1) | 12 (n = 6, 1) | |||
| 12 (n = 19; 18 = 1, 1 = 2) | 13 (n = 14; 13 = 1, 1 = 3) | |||
| 13 (n = 8; 1 = 1, 3 = 2, 1 = 3) | ||||
| > 13 | 5 | 14 (n = 5; 1 = 1, 3 = 2, 1 = 3) | 39 | 14 (n = 27; 21 = 1, 6 = 2) |
| 15 (n = 12; 11 = 1, 4 = 2) |
- Citation: Mehta Y, Mehta C, Kumar A, George JV, Gupta A, Nanda S, Kochhar G, Raizada A. Experience with hemoadsorption (CytoSorb®) in the management of septic shock patients. World J Crit Care Med 2020; 9(1): 1-12
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2220-3141/full/v9/i1/1.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5492/wjccm.v9.i1.1