No abstract

Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) increases morbidity and mortality after liver transplantation (LT). Novel methods of assessing AKI including cystatin C (CyC) and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) have been identified as potential markers of AKI. We compare the ability of standard renal markers (serum creatinine [sCr], estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] and intensive therapy unit organ failure scores with CyC and NGAL to predict AKI within the first 48 hours after LT. 95 patients (median age 50 [interquartile range ¼ 41-59], 60% male) underwent LT (25% with acute liver failure). AKI was defined according to the Acute Kidney Injury Network criteria. Severe AKI was classified as !stage 2. NGAL (urine [u] and plasma [p]) and CyC concentrations taken immediately after transplantation on admission to the Liver Intensive Care Unit were compared with standard markers of renal function. Predictive ability was assessed using the area under the curve generated by receiver operator characteristic analysis (AUROC) and logistic regression. Day 0 sCr, uNGAL, pNGAL, CyC, and eGFR predicted AKI as did SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) and APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) scores. APACHE II and pNGAL were the most powerful predictors of severe AKI (APACHE II AUROC ¼ 0.87 [0.77-0.97], P < 0.001; pNGAL AUROC ¼ 0.87 [0.77-0.92], P < 0.001). Using multivariate logistic regression, APACHE II (odds ratio 1.64/point [95% confidence interval ¼ 1.22-2.21, P ¼ 0.001] and pNGAL [odds ratio ¼ 1.01/ng/mL [95% confidence interval ¼ 1.00-1.02], P ¼ 0.002) retained independent significance. A ''renal risk score'' using APACHE II > 13 and pNGAL > 258 ng/mL was calculated with a score of !1 having a 100% sensitivity and 76% specificity for severe AKI. In conclusion, a combination of NGAL and APACHE II predicts AKI with high sensitivity and specificity after LT. Liver Transpl 16:1257-1266, 2010. V C 2010 AASLD.Received March 14, 2010; accepted July 15, 2010.Renal dysfunction is common after liver transplantation (LT). The incidence of acute renal failure complicating the posttransplant period varies between 48% and 94% 1 and affects both short-term and long-term outcome. Mortality in those requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) may be as high as 40% at 90 days, rising to 54% at 1 year.2 Although many risk factors for developing renal dysfunction posttransplant have been investigated, the greatest impact on outcome is in patients who develop de novo renal impairment, especially in those who require RRT.2 Patients with low glomerular filtration rates (GFR) at 1 month post-LT are also at risk of developing severe renal dysfunction at 5 years post-LT 3 and the need for dialysis in LT recipients has been reported to be as high as 18% at 5 years.

Clinically significant ammonia clearance can be achieved in adult patients with hyperammonaemia utilizing continuous VVHF. Ammonia clearance is closely correlated with ultrafiltration rate. HF was associated with a fall in arterial ammonia concentration.

Author contributions: KH, JMP, LB, CS had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All other authors contributed substantially to the study design, data analysis and interpretation, and the writing of the manuscript.

Objective To identify the key mechanisms that clinicians perceive improve care in the intensive care unit (ICU), as a result of their involvement in post-ICU programs. Methods Qualitative inquiry via focus groups and interviews with members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s THRIVE collaborative sites (follow-up clinics and peer support). Framework analysis was used to synthesize and interpret the data. Results Five key mechanisms were identified as drivers of improvement back into the ICU: (1) identifying otherwise unseen targets for ICU quality improvement or education programs—new ideas for quality improvement were generated and greater attention paid to detail in clinical care. (2) Creating a new role for survivors in the ICU—former patients and family members adopted an advocacy or peer volunteer role. (3) Inviting critical care providers to the post-ICU program to educate, sensitize, and motivate them—clinician peers and trainees were invited to attend as a helpful learning strategy to gain insights into post-ICU care requirements. (4) Changing clinician’s own understanding of patient experience—there appeared to be a direct individual benefit from working in post-ICU programs. (5) Improving morale and meaningfulness of ICU work—this was achieved by closing the feedback loop to ICU clinicians regarding patient and family outcomes. Conclusions The follow-up of patients and families in post-ICU care settings is perceived to improve care within the ICU via five key mechanisms. Further research is required in this novel area. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-019-05647-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveTo comprehensively update and survey the current provision of recovery, rehabilitation and follow-up services for adult critical care patients across the UK.DesignCross-sectional, self-administered, predominantly closed-question, electronic, online survey.SettingInstitutions providing adult critical care services identified from national databases.ParticipantsMultiprofessional critical care clinicians delivering services at each site.ResultsResponses from 176 UK hospital sites were included (176/242, 72.7%). Inpatient recovery and follow-up services were present at 127/176 (72.2%) sites, adopting multiple formats of delivery and primarily delivered by nurses (n=115/127, 90.6%). Outpatient services ran at 130 sites (73.9%), predominantly as outpatient clinics. Most services (n=108/130, 83.1%) were co-delivered by two or more healthcare professionals, typically nurse/intensive care unit (ICU) physician (n=29/130, 22.3%) or nurse/ICU physician/physiotherapist (n=19/130, 14.6%) teams. Clinical psychology was most frequently lacking from inpatient or outpatient services. Lack of funding was consistently the primary barrier to service provision, with other barriers including logistical and service prioritisation factors indicating that infrastructure and profile for services remain inadequate. Posthospital discharge physical rehabilitation programmes were relatively few (n=31/176, 17.6%), but peer support services were available in nearly half of responding institutions (n=85/176, 48.3%). The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in either increasing, decreasing or reformatting service provision. Future plans for long-term service transformation focus on expansion of current, and establishment of new, outpatient services.ConclusionOverall, these data demonstrate a proliferation of recovery, follow-up and rehabilitation services for critically ill adults in the past decade across the UK, although service gaps remain suggesting further work is required for guideline implementation. Findings can be used to enhance survivorship for critically ill adults, inform policymakers and commissioners, and provide comparative data and experiential insights for clinicians designing models of care in international healthcare jurisdictions.

Objectives: To understand from the perspective of patients who did, and did not attend ICU recovery programs, what were the most important components of successful programs and how should they be organized. Design: International, qualitative study. Setting: Fourteen hospitals in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Patients: We conducted 66 semi-structured interviews with a diverse group of patients, 52 of whom had used an ICU recovery program and 14 whom had not. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Using content analysis, prevalent themes were documented to understand what improved their outcomes. Contrasting quotes from patients who had not received certain aspects of care were used to identify perceived differential effectiveness. Successful ICU recovery programs had five key components: 1) Continuity of care; 2) Improving symptom status; 3) Normalization and expectation management; 4) Internal and external validation of progress; and 5) Reducing feelings of guilt and helplessness. The delivery of care which achieved these goals was facilitated by early involvement (even before hospital discharge), direct involvement of ICU staff, and a focus on integration across traditional disease, symptom, and social welfare needs. Conclusions: In this multicenter study, conducted across three continents, patients identified specific and reproducible modes of benefit derived from ICU recovery programs, which could be the target of future intervention refinement.

Objective-Investigate the challenges experienced by survivors of critical illness and their caregivers across the transitions of care from intensive care to community, and the potential problem-solving strategies used to navigate these challenges.Design-Qualitative design -data generation via interviews and data analysis via the Framework Analysis method.Setting-Patients and caregivers from three continents, identified through the Society of Critical Care Medicine's THRIVE international collaborative sites (follow-up clinics and peer support groups). Subjects-Patients and caregivers following critical illness. Interventions-NilMeasurements and Main Results-From 86 interviews (66 patients, 20 caregivers), we identified the following major themes: 1. Challenges for patients -Interacting with the health system and gaps in care; Managing others' expectations of illness and recovery; 2. Challenges for caregivers -Health system shortfalls and inadequate communication; and Lack of support for caregivers. 3. Patient and caregiver-driven problem solving across the transitions of care -Personal attributes, resources, and initiative; Receiving support and helping others; and Acceptance.Conclusions-Survivors and caregivers experienced a range of challenges across the transitions of care. There were distinct and contrasting themes related to the caregiver experience. Survivors and caregivers used comparable problem-solving strategies to navigate the challenges encountered across the transitions of care.Haines et al.