John A. Kellum

Acute Kidney Injury Network: report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury

IntroductionAcute kidney injury (AKI) is a complex disorder for which currently there is no accepted definition. Having a uniform standard for diagnosing and classifying AKI would enhance our ability to manage these patients. Future clinical and translational research in AKI will require collaborative networks of investigators drawn from various disciplines, dissemination of information via multidisciplinary joint conferences and publications, and improved translation of knowledge from pre-clinical research. We describe an initiative to develop uniform standards for defining and classifying AKI and to establish a forum for multidisciplinary interaction to improve care for patients with or at risk for AKI.MethodsMembers representing key societies in critical care and nephrology along with additional experts in adult and pediatric AKI participated in a two day conference in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, in September 2005 and were assigned to one of three workgroups. Each groups discussions formed the basis for draft recommendations that were later refined and improved during discussion with the larger group. Dissenting opinions were also noted. The final draft recommendations were circulated to all participants and subsequently agreed upon as the consensus recommendations for this report. Participating societies endorsed the recommendations and agreed to help disseminate the results.ResultsThe term AKI is proposed to represent the entire spectrum of acute renal failure. Diagnostic criteria for AKI are proposed based on acute alterations in serum creatinine or urine output. A staging system for AKI which reflects quantitative changes in serum creatinine and urine output has been developed.ConclusionWe describe the formation of a multidisciplinary collaborative network focused on AKI. We have proposed uniform standards for diagnosing and classifying AKI which will need to be validated in future studies. The Acute Kidney Injury Network offers a mechanism for proceeding with efforts to improve patient outcomes.

A Randomized Trial of Protocol-Based Care for Early Septic Shock

BACKGROUND In a single-center study published more than a decade ago involving patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis and septic shock, mortality was markedly lower among those who were treated according to a 6-hour protocol of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), in which intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions were adjusted to reach central hemodynamic targets, than among those receiving usual care. We conducted a trial to determine whether these findings were generalizable and whether all aspects of the protocol were necessary. METHODS In 31 emergency departments in the United States, we randomly assigned patients with septic shock to one of three groups for 6 hours of resuscitation: protocol-based EGDT; protocol-based standard therapy that did not require the placement of a central venous catheter, administration of inotropes, or blood transfusions; or usual care. The primary end point was 60-day in-hospital mortality. We tested sequentially whether protocol-based care (EGDT and standard-therapy groups combined) was superior to usual care and whether protocol-based EGDT was superior to protocol-based standard therapy. Secondary outcomes included longer-term mortality and the need for organ support. RESULTS We enrolled 1341 patients, of whom 439 were randomly assigned to protocol-based EGDT, 446 to protocol-based standard therapy, and 456 to usual care. Resuscitation strategies differed significantly with respect to the monitoring of central venous pressure and oxygen and the use of intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions. By 60 days, there were 92 deaths in the protocol-based EGDT group (21.0%), 81 in the protocol-based standard-therapy group (18.2%), and 86 in the usual-care group (18.9%) (relative risk with protocol-based therapy vs. usual care, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.31; P=0.83; relative risk with protocol-based EGDT vs. protocol-based standard therapy, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.51; P=0.31). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality, 1-year mortality, or the need for organ support. CONCLUSIONS In a multicenter trial conducted in the tertiary care setting, protocol-based resuscitation of patients in whom septic shock was diagnosed in the emergency department did not improve outcomes. (Funded by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; ProCESS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00510835.).

Intensity of renal support in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury.

BACKGROUND The optimal intensity of renal-replacement therapy in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury is controversial. METHODS We randomly assigned critically ill patients with acute kidney injury and failure of at least one nonrenal organ or sepsis to receive intensive or less intensive renal-replacement therapy. The primary end point was death from any cause by day 60. In both study groups, hemodynamically stable patients underwent intermittent hemodialysis, and hemodynamically unstable patients underwent continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration or sustained low-efficiency dialysis. Patients receiving the intensive treatment strategy underwent intermittent hemodialysis and sustained low-efficiency dialysis six times per week and continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration at 35 ml per kilogram of body weight per hour; for patients receiving the less-intensive treatment strategy, the corresponding treatments were provided thrice weekly and at 20 ml per kilogram per hour. RESULTS Baseline characteristics of the 1124 patients in the two groups were similar. The rate of death from any cause by day 60 was 53.6% with intensive therapy and 51.5% with less-intensive therapy (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.40; P=0.47). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the duration of renal-replacement therapy or the rate of recovery of kidney function or nonrenal organ failure. Hypotension during intermittent dialysis occurred in more patients randomly assigned to receive intensive therapy, although the frequency of hemodialysis sessions complicated by hypotension was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Intensive renal support in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury did not decrease mortality, improve recovery of kidney function, or reduce the rate of nonrenal organ failure as compared with less-intensive therapy involving a defined dose of intermittent hemodialysis three times per week and continuous renal-replacement therapy at 20 ml per kilogram per hour. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00076219.)

Findings of the First Consensus Conference on Medical Emergency Teams

Background:Studies have established that physiologic instability and services mismatching precede adverse events in hospitalized patients. In response to these considerations, the concept of a Rapid Response System (RRS) has emerged. The responding team is commonly known as a medical emergency team (MET), rapid response team (RRT), or critical care outreach (CCO). Studies show that an RRS may improve outcome, but questions remain regarding the benefit, design elements, and advisability of implementing a MET system. Methods:In June 2005 an International Conference on Medical Emergency Teams (ICMET) included experts in patient safety, hospital medicine, critical care medicine, and METs. Seven of 25 had no experience with an RRS, and the remainder had experience with one of the three major forms of RRS. After preconference telephone and e-mail conversations by the panelists in which questions to be discussed were characterized, literature reviewed, and preliminary answers created, the panelists convened for 2 days to create a consensus document. Four major content areas were addressed: What is a MET response? Is there a MET syndrome? What are barriers to METS? How should outcome be measured? Panelists considered whether all hospitals should implement an RRS. Results:Patients needing an RRS intervention are suddenly critically ill and have a mismatch of resources to needs. Hospitals should implement an RRS, which consists of four elements: an afferent, “crisis detection” and “response triggering” mechanism; an efferent, predetermined rapid response team; a governance/administrative structure to supply and organize resources; and a mechanism to evaluate crisis antecedents and promote hospital process improvement to prevent future events.

Use of dopamine in acute renal failure: a meta-analysis.

ObjectiveTo determine whether low-dose dopamine administration reduces the incidence or severity of acute renal failure, need for dialysis, or mortality in patients with critical illness. Data Sources and Study Selection We performed a MEDLINE search of literature published from 1966 to 2000 for studies addressing the use of dopamine in the prevention and/or treatment of renal dysfunction. Data Extraction Data were abstracted regarding design characteristics, population, intervention, and outcomes. Results of individual randomized clinical trials were pooled using a fixed effects model and a Mantel-Haenszel weighted chi-square analysis. Data SynthesisWe identified a total of 58 studies (n = 2149). Of these, outcome data were reported in 24 studies (n = 1019) and 17 of these were randomized clinical trials (n = 854). Dopamine did not prevent mortality, (relative risk, 0.90 [0.44–1.83];p = .92), onset of acute renal failure (relative risk, 0.81 [0.55–1.19];p = .34), or need for dialysis, (relative risk, 0.83 [0.55–1.24];p = .42). There was sufficient statistical power to exclude any large (>50%) effect of dopamine on the risk of acute renal failure or need for dialysis. ConclusionsThe use of low-dose dopamine for the treatment or prevention of acute renal failure cannot be justified on the basis of available evidence and should be eliminated from routine clinical use.

Discovery and validation of cell cycle arrest biomarkers in human acute kidney injury

IntroductionAcute kidney injury (AKI) can evolve quickly and clinical measures of function often fail to detect AKI at a time when interventions are likely to provide benefit. Identifying early markers of kidney damage has been difficult due to the complex nature of human AKI, in which multiple etiologies exist. The objective of this study was to identify and validate novel biomarkers of AKI.MethodsWe performed two multicenter observational studies in critically ill patients at risk for AKI - discovery and validation. The top two markers from discovery were validated in a second study (Sapphire) and compared to a number of previously described biomarkers. In the discovery phase, we enrolled 522 adults in three distinct cohorts including patients with sepsis, shock, major surgery, and trauma and examined over 300 markers. In the Sapphire validation study, we enrolled 744 adult subjects with critical illness and without evidence of AKI at enrollment; the final analysis cohort was a heterogeneous sample of 728 critically ill patients. The primary endpoint was moderate to severe AKI (KDIGO stage 2 to 3) within 12 hours of sample collection.ResultsModerate to severe AKI occurred in 14% of Sapphire subjects. The two top biomarkers from discovery were validated. Urine insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7 (IGFBP7) and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2 (TIMP-2), both inducers of G1 cell cycle arrest, a key mechanism implicated in AKI, together demonstrated an AUC of 0.80 (0.76 and 0.79 alone). Urine [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] was significantly superior to all previously described markers of AKI (P <0.002), none of which achieved an AUC >0.72. Furthermore, [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] significantly improved risk stratification when added to a nine-variable clinical model when analyzed using Cox proportional hazards model, generalized estimating equation, integrated discrimination improvement or net reclassification improvement. Finally, in sensitivity analyses [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] remained significant and superior to all other markers regardless of changes in reference creatinine method.ConclusionsTwo novel markers for AKI have been identified and validated in independent multicenter cohorts. Both markers are superior to existing markers, provide additional information over clinical variables and add mechanistic insight into AKI.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01209169.

Diagnosis, evaluation, and management of acute kidney injury: a KDIGO summary (Part 1)

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common and serious problem affecting millions and causing death and disability for many. In 2012, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes completed the first ever, international, multidisciplinary, clinical practice guideline for AKI. The guideline is based on evidence review and appraisal, and covers AKI definition, risk assessment, evaluation, prevention, and treatment. In this review we summarize key aspects of the guideline including definition and staging of AKI, as well as evaluation and nondialytic management. Contrast-induced AKI and management of renal replacement therapy will be addressed in a separate review. Treatment recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant trials. Appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed and a detailed rationale for each recommendation is provided.

Septic Acute Kidney Injury in Critically Ill Patients: Clinical Characteristics and Outcomes

Sepsis is the most common cause of acute kidney injury (AKI) in critical illness, but there is limited information on septic AKI. A prospective, observational study of critically ill patients with septic and nonseptic AKI was performed from September 2000 to December 2001 at 54 hospitals in 23 countries. A total of 1753 patients were enrolled. Sepsis was considered the cause in 833 (47.5%); the predominant sources of sepsis were chest and abdominal (54.3%). Septic AKI was associated with greater aberrations in hemodynamics and laboratory parameters, greater severity of illness, and higher need for mechanical ventilation and vasoactive therapy. There was no difference in enrollment kidney function or in the proportion who received renal replacement therapy (RRT; 72 versus 71%; P = 0.83). Oliguria was more common in septic AKI (67 versus 57%; P < 0.001). Septic AKI had a higher in-hospital case-fatality rate compared with nonseptic AKI (70.2 versus 51.8%; P < 0.001). After adjustment for covariates, septic AKI remained associated with higher odds for death (1.48; 95% confidence interval 1.17 to 1.89; P = 0.001). Median (IQR) duration of hospital stay for survivors (37 [19 to 59] versus 21 [12 to 42] d; P < 0.0001) was longer for septic AKI. There was a trend to lower serum creatinine (106 [73 to 158] versus 121 [88 to 184] mumol/L; P = 0.01) and RRT dependence (9 versus 14%; P = 0.052) at hospital discharge for septic AKI. Patients with septic AKI were sicker and had a higher burden of illness and greater abnormalities in acute physiology. Patients with septic AKI had an increased risk for death and longer duration of hospitalization yet showed trends toward greater renal recovery and independence from RRT.

Major complications, mortality, and resource utilization after open abdominal surgery: 0.9% saline compared to Plasma-Lyte.

Objective:To assess the association of 0.9% saline use versus a calcium-free physiologically balanced crystalloid solution with major morbidity and clinical resource use after abdominal surgery. Background:0.9% saline, which results in a hyperchloremic acidosis after infusion, is frequently used to replace volume losses after major surgery. Methods:An observational study using the Premier Perspective Comparative Database was performed to evaluate adult patients undergoing major open abdominal surgery who received either 0.9% saline (30,994 patients) or a balanced crystalloid solution (926 patients) on the day of surgery. The primary outcome was major morbidity and secondary outcomes included minor complications and acidosis-related interventions. Outcomes were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression and propensity scoring models. Results:For the entire cohort, the in-hospital mortality was 5.6% in the saline group and 2.9% in the balanced group (P < 0.001). One or more major complications occurred in 33.7% of the saline group and 23% of the balanced group (P < 0.001). In the 3:1 propensity-matched sample, treatment with balanced fluid was associated with fewer complications (odds ratio 0.79; 95% confidence interval 0.66–0.97). Postoperative infection (P = 0.006), renal failure requiring dialysis (P < 0.001), blood transfusion (P < 0.001), electrolyte disturbance (P = 0.046), acidosis investigation (P < 0.001), and intervention (P = 0.02) were all more frequent in patients receiving 0.9% saline. Conclusions:Among hospitals in the Premier Perspective Database, the use of a calcium-free balanced crystalloid for replacement of fluid losses on the day of major surgery was associated with less postoperative morbidity than 0.9% saline.

Developing a consensus classification system for acute renal failure.

A biochemical definition and classification system for acute renal dysfunction is long overdue. Its absence has impeded progress in clinical and even basic research concerning a syndrome associated with mortality rates of 30 to 80%. No definition of acute renal dysfunction will be perfect, but the absence of a definition or, worse, more than 35 separate definitions, as found in the literature, is unacceptable. Many of the challenges, considerations, and controversies associated with achieving consensus and developing a classification for acute renal dysfunction are addressed. Recommendations for validating a classification system are also considered.