Renal replacement therapy is an independent risk factor for mortality in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury.
; ; et al
in Critical Care: the Official Journal of the Critical Care Forum (2010), 14(6), 221
INTRODUCTION: 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 ... [more ▼]
INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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. [less ▲]Detailed reference viewed: 19 (7 ULg)
Intermittent versus continuous renal replacement therapy for acute kidney injury patients admitted to the intensive care unit: results of a randomized clinical trial.
; ; et al
in Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation (2009), 24(2), 512-8
BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty on the effect of different dialysis modalities for the treatment of patients with acute kidney injury (AKI), admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). This controlled ... [more ▼]
BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty on the effect of different dialysis modalities for the treatment of patients with acute kidney injury (AKI), admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). This controlled clinical trial performed in the framework of the multicentre SHARF 4 study (Stuivenberg Hospital Acute Renal Failure) aimed to investigate the outcome in patients with AKI, stratified according to severity of disease and randomized to different treatment options. METHODS: This was a multicentre prospective randomized controlled trial with stratification according to severity of disease expressed by the SHARF score. ICU patients were eligible for inclusion when serum creatinine was >2 mg/dL, and RRT was initiated. The selected patients were randomized to intermittent (IRRT) or continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). RESULTS: A total of 316 AKI patients were randomly assigned to IRRT (n = 144) or CRRT (n = 172). The mean age was 66 (range 18-96); 59% were male. Intention-to-treat analysis revealed a mortality of 62.5% in IRRT compared to 58.1% in CRRT (P = 0.430). No difference between IRRT and CRRT could be observed in the duration of ICU stay or hospital stay. In survivors, renal recovery at hospital discharge was comparable between both groups. Multivariate analysis, including the SHARF score, APACHE II and SOFA scores for correction of disease severity, showed no difference in mortality between both treatment modalities. This result was confirmed in pre-specified subgroup analysis (elderly, patients with sepsis, heart failure, ventilation) and after exclusion of possible confounders (early mortality, delayed ICU admission). CONCLUSIONS: Modality of RRT, either CRRT or IRRT, had no impact on the outcome in ICU patients with AKI. Both modalities need to be considered as complementary in the treatment of AKI (Clinical Trial: SHARF 4, NCT00322933, http://ClinicalTrials.gov). [less ▲]Detailed reference viewed: 6 (1 ULg)