Sharon Soroko

Timing of Initiation of Dialysis in Critically Ill Patients with Acute Kidney Injury

Among critically ill patients, acute kidney injury (AKI) is a relatively common complication that is associated with an increased risk for death and other complications. To date, no treatment has been developed to prevent or attenuate established AKI. Dialysis often is required, but the optimal timing of initiation of dialysis is unknown. Data from the Program to Improve Care in Acute Renal Disease (PICARD), a multicenter observational study of AKI, were analyzed. Among 243 patients who did not have chronic kidney disease and who required dialysis for severe AKI, we examined the risk for death within 60 d from the diagnosis of AKI by the blood urea nitrogen (BUN) concentration at the start of dialysis (BUN < or = 76 mg/dl in the low degree of azotemia group [n = 122] versus BUN > 76 mg/dl in the high degree of azotemia group [n = 121]). Standard Kaplan-Meier product limit estimates, proportional hazards (Cox) regression methods, and a propensity score approach were used to account for selection effects. Crude survival rates were slightly lower for patients who started dialysis at higher BUN concentrations, despite a lesser burden of organ system failure. Adjusted for age, hepatic failure, sepsis, thrombocytopenia, and serum creatinine and stratified by site and initial dialysis modality, the relative risk for death that was associated with initiation of dialysis at a higher BUN was 1.85 (95% confidence interval 1.16 to 2.96). Further adjustment for the propensity score did not materially alter the association (relative risk 1.97; 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 3.20). Among critically ill patients with AKI, initiation of dialysis at higher BUN concentrations was associated with an increased risk for death. Although the results could reflect residual confounding by severity of illness, they provide a rationale for prospective testing of alternative dialysis initiation strategies in critically ill patients with severe AKI.

Fluid accumulation, recognition and staging of acute kidney injury in critically-ill patients

IntroductionSerum creatinine concentration (sCr) is the marker used for diagnosing and staging acute kidney injury (AKI) in the RIFLE and AKIN classification systems, but is influenced by several factors including its volume of distribution. We evaluated the effect of fluid accumulation on sCr to estimate severity of AKI.MethodsIn 253 patients recruited from a prospective observational study of critically-ill patients with AKI, we calculated cumulative fluid balance and computed a fluid-adjusted sCr concentration reflecting the effect of volume of distribution during the development phase of AKI. The time to reach a relative 50% increase from the reference sCr using the crude and adjusted sCr was compared. We defined late recognition to estimate severity of AKI when this time interval to reach 50% relative increase between the crude and adjusted sCr exceeded 24 hours.ResultsThe median cumulative fluid balance increased from 2.7 liters on day 2 to 6.5 liters on day 7. The difference between adjusted and crude sCr was significantly higher at each time point and progressively increased from a median difference of 0.09 mg/dL to 0.65 mg/dL after six days. Sixty-four (25%) patients met criteria for a late recognition to estimate severity progression of AKI. This group of patients had a lower urine output and a higher daily and cumulative fluid balance during the development phase of AKI. They were more likely to need dialysis but showed no difference in mortality compared to patients who did not meet the criteria for late recognition of severity progression.ConclusionsIn critically-ill patients, the dilution of sCr by fluid accumulation may lead to underestimation of the severity of AKI and increases the time required to identify a 50% relative increase in sCr. A simple formula to correct sCr for fluid balance can improve staging of AKI and provide a better parameter for earlier recognition of severity progression.

Effluent Volume in Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy Overestimates the Delivered Dose of Dialysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Studies examining dose of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) and outcomes have yielded conflicting results. Most studies considered the prescribed dose as the effluent rate represented by ml/kg per hour and reported this volume as a surrogate of solute removal. Because filter fouling can reduce the efficacy of solute clearance, the actual delivered dose may be substantially lower than the observed effluent rate. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS Data were examined from 52 critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring dialysis. All patients were treated with predilution continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) and regional citrate anticoagulation. Filter performance was monitored during the entire course of therapy by measuring blood urea nitrogen (BUN) and dialysis fluid urea nitrogen (FUN) at initiation and every 12 hours. Filter efficacy was assessed by calculating FUN/BUN ratios every 12 hours of filter use. Prescribed urea clearance (K, ml/min) was determined from the effluent rate. Actual delivered urea clearance was determined using dialysis-side measurements. RESULTS Median daily treatment time was 1413 minutes (1260 to 1440) with a total effluent volume of 46.4 ± 17.4 L and urea mass removal of 13.0 ± 7.6 mg/min. Prescribed clearance overestimated the actual delivered clearance by 23.8%. This gap between prescribed and delivered clearance was related to the decrease in filter function assessed by the FUN/BUN ratio. CONCLUSIONS Effluent volume significantly overestimates delivered dose of small solutes in CRRT. To assess adequacy of CRRT, solute clearance should be measured rather than estimated by the effluent volume.

Comparison of methods for estimating glomerular filtration rate in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury

BACKGROUND In critically ill patients with acute kidney injury, estimates of kidney function are used to modify drug dosing, adjust nutritional therapy and provide dialytic support. However, estimating glomerular filtration rate is challenging due to fluctuations in kidney function, creatinine production and fluid balance. We hypothesized that commonly used glomerular filtration rate prediction equations overestimate kidney function in patients with acute kidney injury and that improved estimates could be obtained by methods incorporating changes in creatinine generation and fluid balance. METHODS We analysed data from a multicentre observational study of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients. We identified 12 non-dialysed, non-oliguric patients with consecutive increases in creatinine for at least 3 and up to 7 days who had measurements of urinary creatinine clearance. Glomerular filtration rate was estimated by Cockcroft-Gault, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease, Jelliffe equation and Jelliffe equation with creatinine adjusted for fluid balance (Modified Jelliffe) and compared to measured urinary creatinine clearance. RESULTS Glomerular filtration rate estimated by Jelliffe and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation correlated best with urinary creatinine clearances. Estimated glomerular filtration rate by Cockcroft-Gault, Modification of Diet in Renal Disease and Jelliffe overestimated urinary creatinine clearance was 80%, 33%, 10%, respectively, and Modified Jelliffe underestimated GFR by 2%. CONCLUSION In patients with acute kidney injury, glomerular filtration rate estimating equations can be improved by incorporating data on creatinine generation and fluid balance. A better assessment of glomerular filtration rate in acute kidney injury could improve evaluation and management and guide interventions.

Toward the optimal dose metric in continuous renal replacement therapy

Purpose: There is no consensus on the optimal method to measure delivered dialysis dose in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). The use of direct dialysate-side quantification of dose in preference to the use of formal blood-based urea kinetic modeling and simplified blood urea nitrogen (BUN) methods has been recommended for dose assessment in critically-ill patients with AKI. We evaluate six different blood-side and dialysate-side methods for dose quantification. Methods: We examined data from 52 critically-ill patients with AKI requiring dialysis. All patients were treated with pre-dilution CVVHDF and regional citrate anticoagulation. Delivered dose was calculated using blood-side and dialysis-side kinetics. Filter function was assessed during the entire course of therapy by calculating BUN to dialysis fluid urea nitrogen (FUN) ratios q/12 hours. Results: Median daily treatment time was 1,413 min (1,260–1,440). The median observed effluent volume per treatment was 2,355 mL/h (2,060–2,863) (p<0.001). Urea mass removal rate was 13.0±7.6 mg/min. Both EKR (r2=0.250; p<0.001) and KD (r2=0.409; p<0.001) showed a good correlation with actual solute removal. EKR and KD presented a decline in their values that was related to the decrease in filter function assessed by the FUN/BUN ratio. Conclusions: Effluent rate (mL/kg/h) can only empirically provide an estimated of dose in CRRT. For clinical practice, we recommend that the delivered dose should be measured and expressed as KD. EKR also constitutes a good method for dose comparisons over time and across modalities.

Anticoagulation, delivered dose and outcomes in CRRT: The program to improve care in acute renal disease (PICARD)

Delivered dialysis dose by continuous renal replacement therapies (CRRT) depends on circuit efficacy, which is influenced in part by the anticoagulation strategy. We evaluated the association of anticoagulation strategy used on solute clearance efficacy, circuit longevity, bleeding complications, and mortality. We analyzed data from 1740 sessions 24 h in length among 244 critically ill patients, with at least 48 h on CRRT. Regional citrate, heparin, or saline flushes was variably used to prevent or attenuate filter clotting. We calculated delivered dose using the standardized Kt/Vurea. We monitored filter efficacy by calculating effluent urea nitrogen/blood urea nitrogen ratios. Filter longevity was significantly higher with citrate (median 48, interquartile range [IQR] 20.3–75.0 hours) than with heparin (5.9, IQR 8.5–27.0 hours) or no anticoagulation (17.5, IQR 9.5–32 hours, P < 0.0001). Delivered dose was highest in treatments where citrate was employed. Bleeding complications were similar across the three groups (P = 0.25). Compared with no anticoagulation, odds of death was higher with the heparin use (odds ratio [OR] 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–3.32; P = 0.033), but not with citrate (OR 1.02 95% CI 0.54–1.96; P = 0.53). Relative to heparin or no anticoagulation, the use of regional citrate for anticoagulation in CRRT was associated with significantly prolonged filter life and increased filter efficacy with respect to delivered dialysis dose. Rates of bleeding complications, transfusions, and mortality were similar across the three groups. While these and other data suggest that citrate anticoagulation may offer superior technical performance than heparin or no anticoagulation, adequately powered clinical trials comparing alternative anticoagulation strategies should be performed to evaluate overall safety and efficacy.

Anticoagulation, delivered dose and outcomes in CRRT: The program to improve care in acute renal disease (PICARD): Anticoagulation, delivered dose and outcomes

Delivered dialysis dose by continuous renal replacement therapies (CRRT) depends on circuit efficacy, which is influenced in part by the anticoagulation strategy. We evaluated the association of anticoagulation strategy used on solute clearance efficacy, circuit longevity, bleeding complications, and mortality. We analyzed data from 1740 sessions 24 h in length among 244 critically ill patients, with at least 48 h on CRRT. Regional citrate, heparin, or saline flushes was variably used to prevent or attenuate filter clotting. We calculated delivered dose using the standardized Kt/Vurea. We monitored filter efficacy by calculating effluent urea nitrogen/blood urea nitrogen ratios. Filter longevity was significantly higher with citrate (median 48, interquartile range [IQR] 20.3–75.0 hours) than with heparin (5.9, IQR 8.5–27.0 hours) or no anticoagulation (17.5, IQR 9.5–32 hours, P < 0.0001). Delivered dose was highest in treatments where citrate was employed. Bleeding complications were similar across the three groups (P = 0.25). Compared with no anticoagulation, odds of death was higher with the heparin use (odds ratio [OR] 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–3.32; P = 0.033), but not with citrate (OR 1.02 95% CI 0.54–1.96; P = 0.53). Relative to heparin or no anticoagulation, the use of regional citrate for anticoagulation in CRRT was associated with significantly prolonged filter life and increased filter efficacy with respect to delivered dialysis dose. Rates of bleeding complications, transfusions, and mortality were similar across the three groups. While these and other data suggest that citrate anticoagulation may offer superior technical performance than heparin or no anticoagulation, adequately powered clinical trials comparing alternative anticoagulation strategies should be performed to evaluate overall safety and efficacy.

Anticoagulation, delivered dose and outcomes in CRRT

Delivered dialysis dose by continuous renal replacement therapies (CRRT) depends on circuit efficacy, which is influenced in part by the anticoagulation strategy. We evaluated the association of anticoagulation strategy used on solute clearance efficacy, circuit longevity, bleeding complications, and mortality. We analyzed data from 1740 sessions 24 h in length among 244 critically ill patients, with at least 48 h on CRRT. Regional citrate, heparin, or saline flushes was variably used to prevent or attenuate filter clotting. We calculated delivered dose using the standardized Kt/Vurea. We monitored filter efficacy by calculating effluent urea nitrogen/blood urea nitrogen ratios. Filter longevity was significantly higher with citrate (median 48, interquartile range [IQR] 20.3–75.0 hours) than with heparin (5.9, IQR 8.5–27.0 hours) or no anticoagulation (17.5, IQR 9.5–32 hours, P < 0.0001). Delivered dose was highest in treatments where citrate was employed. Bleeding complications were similar across the three groups (P = 0.25). Compared with no anticoagulation, odds of death was higher with the heparin use (odds ratio [OR] 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02–3.32; P = 0.033), but not with citrate (OR 1.02 95% CI 0.54–1.96; P = 0.53). Relative to heparin or no anticoagulation, the use of regional citrate for anticoagulation in CRRT was associated with significantly prolonged filter life and increased filter efficacy with respect to delivered dialysis dose. Rates of bleeding complications, transfusions, and mortality were similar across the three groups. While these and other data suggest that citrate anticoagulation may offer superior technical performance than heparin or no anticoagulation, adequately powered clinical trials comparing alternative anticoagulation strategies should be performed to evaluate overall safety and efficacy.