Extracorporeal life support for severe leptospirosis: Case series and narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Leptospirosis can be associated with multi-system organ failure (MSOF) and significant morbidity and mortality. Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) has been used as salvage therapy for severe leptospirosis complicated by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Current knowledge in this field is limited, with no standardized treatment approaches. We aim to describe the literature to date on the use of ECLS in patients with leptospirosis, highlighting associations, outcomes, and complications. Methods: We report on the successful use of ECLS in two cases of severe leptospirosis and conduct a narrative review of the literature. Using a search strategy developed in consultation with a medical librarian and validated across pre-selected articles, several databases were searched. We included case reports, case series, cohort studies, and prospective studies of adult patients with confirmed leptospirosis undergoing ECLS. Editorials, surveys, or opinion articles without primary patient data were excluded. Overall mortality was our primary outcome. Results: Two cases of previously healthy males presenting with ARDS due to leptospiral infection are described. Literature review identified 25 articles containing 43 reported cases of patients treated with ECLS for severe leptospirosis. Patients were mostly young and male. Overall mortality was 16%. The most common complication recognized was acute renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy. Additional complications included diffuse intravascular coagulation, necrotizing pancreatitis, and limb ischemia. Conclusion: Leptospirosis should be considered in patients with epidemiologic exposure(s) presenting with critical illness, including ARDS and MSOF. ECLS is a viable rescue strategy in severe leptospirosis, even with established MSOF.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".