Uchino, S. et al. Patient and kidney survival by dialysis modality in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Int. J. Artif. Organs 30, 281-292

Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anesthesiology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo - Japan.
The International journal of artificial organs (Impact Factor: 0.96). 05/2007; 30(4):281-92.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Using a large, international cohort, we sought to determine the effect of initial technique of renal replacement therapy (RRT) on the outcome of acute renal failure (ARF) in the intensive care unit (ICU). We enrolled 1218 patients treated with continuous RRT (CRRT) or intermittent RRT (IRRT) for ARF in 54 ICUs in 23 countries. We obtained demographic, biochemical and clinical data and followed patients to either death or hospital discharge. Information was analyzed to assess the independent impact of treatment choice on survival and renal recovery. Patients treated first with CRRT (N=1006, 82.6%) required vasopressor drugs and mechanical ventilation more frequently compared to those receiving IRRT (N=212, 17.4%), (p<0.0001). Unadjusted hospital survival was lower (35.8% vs. 51.9%, p<0.0001). However, unadjusted dialysis-independence at hospital discharge was higher after CRRT (85.5% vs. 66.2%, p<0.0001). Multivariable logistic regression showed that choice of CRRT was not an independent predictor of hospital survival or dialysis-free hospital survival. However, the choice of CRRT was a predictor of dialysis independence at hospital discharge among survivors (OR: 3.333, 95% CI: 1.845 - 6.024, p<0.0001). Further adjustment using a propensity score did not significantly change these results. We conclude that worldwide, the choice of CRRT as initial therapy is not a predictor of hospital survival or dialysis-free hospital survival but is an independent predictor of renal recovery among survivors.

212 Reads
    • "Treatment of AKI includes addressing the etiology, hemodynamic support, maintaining fluid and electrolyte balance, avoiding nephrotoxic drugs, appropriate drug dosing for level of glomerular filtration rate, and RRT. The preferred choice for RRT among peritoneal dialysis (PD), intermittent hemodialysis (IHD), or continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) remains unresolved despite several randomized controlled trials.[5–8] "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Renal replacement therapy in intensive care units (ICUs) varies globally and is dependent on medical and non-medical factors. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients initiated on dialysis in an ICU. Patient and clinical characteristics, cause of kidney injury, laboratory parameters, hemodialysis characteristics, and survival were reviewed. Acute physiological and chronic health (APACHE II) score was use to study the sickness profile. A total of 92 patients underwent 525 hemodialysis sessions. There were 60 male and 32 female patients. The mean age of the patients was 56.5 ± 16 years. The cause of acute kidney injury included sepsis 64, cardiac 7, malaria 7, postoperative 4, trauma 3, poisoning 2, and others 4. Vasopressors were used in 75% and mechanical ventilation was used in 74 (82%) of the cases. APACHE II score was 22.3 + 7.4. The mean creatinine level was 3.6 + 3.7 mg/dl. The duration of dialysis was less than 4 h in 324 (61.2%) sessions and greater than 6 h in 118 (22.5%) sessions. The percentage of 30-day survival was 30%. Intermittent hemodialysis customized to renal support needs of ICU patients is an appropriate option in resource-limited settings.
    Indian Journal of Nephrology 03/2013; 23(1):30-3. DOI:10.4103/0971-4065.107193
  • Source
    • "An inverse relationship between fluid accumulation and survival has been reported in several other conditions, such as in the perioperative period [21-23], acute pulmonary edema [8,24], pulmonary injury [25], sepsis [18,23,26] and acute kidney injury (AKI) [27], chronic renal failure [28,29] and decompensated heart failure [30]. When we studied the impact of all the adjusted variables on combined events, we found that the changes in serum creatinine (≥0.3 mg/dL) and fluid accumulation (≥10%) were the variables most significantly associated with mortality (Table 2). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Fluid overload is a clinical problem frequently related to cardiac and renal dysfunction. The aim of this study was to evaluate fluid overload and changes in serum creatinine as predictors of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity after cardiac surgery. Methods Patients submitted to heart surgery were prospectively enrolled in this study from September 2010 through August 2011. Clinical and laboratory data were collected from each patient at preoperative and trans-operative moments and fluid overload and creatinine levels were recorded daily after cardiac surgery during their ICU stay. Fluid overload was calculated according to the following formula: (Sum of daily fluid received (L) - total amount of fluid eliminated (L)/preoperative weight (kg) × 100). Preoperative demographic and risk indicators, intra-operative parameters and postoperative information were obtained from medical records. Patients were monitored from surgery until death or discharge from the ICU. We also evaluated the survival status at discharge from the ICU and the length of ICU stay (days) of each patient. Results A total of 502 patients were enrolled in this study. Both fluid overload and changes in serum creatinine correlated with mortality (odds ratio (OR) 1.59; confidence interval (CI): 95% 1.18 to 2.14, P = 0.002 and OR 2.91; CI: 95% 1.92 to 4.40, P <0.001, respectively). Fluid overload played a more important role in the length of intensive care stay than changes in serum creatinine. Fluid overload (%): b coefficient = 0.17; beta coefficient = 0.55, P <0.001); change in creatinine (mg/dL): b coefficient = 0.01; beta coefficient = 0.11, P = 0.003). Conclusions Although both fluid overload and changes in serum creatinine are prognostic markers after cardiac surgery, it seems that progressive fluid overload may be an earlier and more sensitive marker of renal dysfunction affecting heart function and, as such, it would allow earlier intervention and more effective control in post cardiac surgery patients.
    Critical care (London, England) 05/2012; 16(3):R99. DOI:10.1186/cc11368 · 4.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Recently, two retrospective cohort studies confirmed the equal outcome for mortality but revealed a better renal recovery in patients treated with CRRT [35,36]. We observed the same trend with 28% of IRRT patients compared to only 18% of CRRT patients with an eGFR of less than 15 mL/minute (stage 5) at hospital discharge (P = .107). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Outcome studies in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) have focused on differences between modalities of renal replacement therapy (RRT). The outcome of conservative treatment, however, has never been compared with RRT. Nine Belgian intensive care units (ICUs) included all adult patients consecutively admitted with serum creatinine >2 mg/dl. Included treatment options were conservative treatment and intermittent or continuous RRT. Disease severity was determined using the Stuivenberg Hospital Acute Renal Failure (SHARF) score. Outcome parameters studied were mortality, hospital length of stay and renal recovery at hospital discharge. Out of 1,303 included patients, 650 required RRT (58% intermittent, 42% continuous RRT). Overall results showed a higher mortality (43% versus 58%) as well as a longer ICU and hospital stay in RRT patients compared to conservative treatment. Using the SHARF score for adjustment of disease severity, an increased risk of death for RRT compared to conservative treatment of RR = 1.75 (95% CI: 1.4 to 2.3) was found. Additional correction for other severity parameters (Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA)), age, type of AKI and clinical conditions confirmed the higher mortality in the RRT group. The SHARF study showed that the higher mortality expected in AKI patients receiving RRT versus conservative treatment can not only be explained by a higher disease severity in the RRT group, even after multiple corrections. A more critical approach to the need for RRT in AKI patients seems to be warranted.
    Critical care (London, England) 12/2010; 14(6):R221. DOI:10.1186/cc9355 · 4.48 Impact Factor
Show more