BackgroundThe optimal timing of initiating renal replacement therapy (RRT) in critical illness complicated by acute kidney injury (AKI) is not clearly established. Trials completed on this topic have been marked by contradictory findings as well as quality and heterogeneity issues. Our goal was to perform a synthesis of the evidence regarding the impact of “early” versus “late” RRT in critically ill patients with AKI, focusing on the highest-quality research on this topic.MethodsA literature search using the PubMed and Embase databases was completed to identify studies involving critically ill adult patients with AKI who received hemodialysis according to “early” versus “late”/“standard” criteria. The highest-quality studies were selected for meta-analysis. The primary outcome of interest was mortality at 1 month (composite of 28- and 30-day mortality). Secondary outcomes evaluated included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS).ResultsThirty-six studies (seven randomized controlled trials, ten prospective cohorts, and nineteen retrospective cohorts) were identified for detailed evaluation. Nine studies involving 1042 patients were considered to be of high quality and were included for quantitative analysis. No survival advantage was found with “early” RRT among high-quality studies with an OR of 0.665 (95 % CI 0.384–1.153, p = 0.146). Subgroup analysis by reason for ICU admission (surgical/medical) or definition of “early” (time/biochemical) showed no evidence of survival advantage. No significant differences were observed in ICU or hospital LOS among high-quality studies.ConclusionsOur conclusion based on this evidence synthesis is that “early” initiation of RRT in critical illness complicated by AKI does not improve patient survival or confer reductions in ICU or hospital LOS.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1291-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives: To examine adverse events and associated factors and outcomes during transition from ICU to hospital ward (after ICU discharge). Design: Multicenter cohort study. Setting: Ten adult medical-surgical Canadian ICUs. Patients: Patients were those admitted to one of the 10 ICUs from July 2014 to January 2016. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Two ICU physicians independently reviewed progress and consultation notes documented in the medical record within 7 days of patient’s ICU discharge date to identify and classify adverse events. The adverse event data were linked to patient characteristics and ICU and ward physician surveys collected during the larger prospective cohort study. Analyses were conducted using multivariable logistic regression. Of the 451 patients included in the study, 84 (19%) experienced an adverse event, the majority (62%) within 3 days of transfer from ICU to hospital ward. Most adverse events resulted only in symptoms (77%) and 36% were judged to be preventable. Patients with adverse events were more likely to be readmitted to the ICU (odds ratio, 5.5; 95% CI, 2.4–13.0), have a longer hospital stay (mean difference, 16.1 d; 95% CI, 8.4–23.7) or die in hospital (odds ratio, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.8-11.8) than those without an adverse event. ICU and ward physician predictions at the time of ICU discharge had low sensitivity and specificity for predicting adverse events, ICU readmissions, and hospital death. Conclusions: Adverse events are common after ICU discharge to hospital ward and are associated with ICU readmission, increased hospital length of stay and death and are not predicted by ICU or ward physicians.

Methylene blue is a phenothiazine-related heterocyclic aromatic molecule presently used in the treatment of methemoglobinemia. Recently, it has been implicated in the treatment of severe refractory vasoplegic shock caused by anaphylaxis, sepsis, or postcardiopulmonary bypass. We present a case of a 27-year-old male with profound vasoplegic shock of unknown etiology which was refractory to vasopressors who responded within hours to a single dose of methylene blue. Additionally, we review the evidence of methylene blue's role in the treatment of shock. This case illustrates a diagnostic approach and treatment options in the setting of undifferentiated vasodilatory shock and outlines a new and emerging role for methylene blue in this clinical setting.