Objectives:
We examined the association between fluid overload and major adverse kidney events in critically ill patients requiring continuous renal replacement therapy for acute kidney injury.
Design:
Retrospective cohort study.
Setting:
ICU in a tertiary medical center.
Patients:
Four-hundred eighty-one critically ill adults requiring continuous renal replacement therapy for acute kidney injury.
Interventions:
None.
Measurements and Main Results:
Fluid overload was assessed as fluid balance from admission to continuous renal replacement therapy initiation, adjusted for body weight. Major adverse kidney events were defined as a composite of mortality, renal replacement therapy-dependence or inability to recover 50% of baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (if not on renal replacement therapy) evaluated up to 90 days after discharge. Patients with fluid overload less than or equal to 10% were less likely to experience major adverse kidney events than those with fluid overload greater than 10% (71.6% vs 79.4%; p = 0.047). Multivariable logistic regression showed that fluid overload greater than 10% was associated with a 58% increased odds of major adverse kidney events (p = 0.046), even after adjusting for timing of continuous renal replacement therapy initiation. There was also a 2.7% increased odds of major adverse kidney events for every 1 day increase from ICU admission to continuous renal replacement therapy initiation (p = 0.024). Fluid overload greater than 10% was also found to be independently associated with an 82% increased odds of hospital mortality (p = 0.004) and 2.5 fewer ventilator-free days (p = 0.044), compared with fluid overload less than or equal to 10%.
Conclusions:
In critically ill patients with acute kidney injury requiring continuous renal replacement therapy, greater than 10% fluid overload was associated with higher risk of 90-day major adverse kidney events, including mortality and decreased renal recovery. Increased time between ICU admission and continuous renal replacement therapy initiation was also associated with decreased renal recovery. Fluid overload represents a potentially modifiable risk factor, independent of timing of continuous renal replacement therapy initiation, that should be further examined in interventional studies.
This study identified that medication diluents contribute substantially to the total IV volume received by critically ill patients. Saline as the primary medication diluent compared with dextrose 5% in water is associated with hyperchloremia, a possible risk factor for acute kidney injury.
Objectives:
Critically ill patients routinely receive vancomycin as empiric antibiotic therapy. A continuous infusion administration strategy may be superior to intermittent infusion by minimizing peak concentrations and variability thereby optimizing safety. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the impact of vancomycin infusion strategy on acute kidney injury in critically ill adults.
Data Sources:
A systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Google Scholar was undertaken.
Study Selection:
We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies evaluating acute kidney injury in critically ill adults comparing vancomycin administered by intermittent and continuous infusion. Secondary outcomes included mortality and pharmacokinetic target attainment.
Data Extraction:
Eleven studies were identified for analysis with baseline demographics, endpoints, protocol definitions, and outcomes extracted.
Data Synthesis:
When compared with intermittent infusion, continuous infusion was associated with a reduction in acute kidney injury in critically ill adults (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34–0.65) and a 2.6 greater odds of pharmacokinetic target attainment (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.52–4.57). No difference in mortality was observed (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.80–1.35).
Conclusions:
When administered via a continuous infusion, vancomycin is associated with a 53% reduction in the odds of acute kidney injury and a 2.6-fold higher odds of pharmacokinetic target attainment when compared with intermittent infusion without influencing overall mortality.
Objective: Administration of diuretics has been shown to assist fluid management and improve clinical outcomes in the critically ill post-shock resolution. Current guidelines have not yet included standardization or guidance for diuretic-based de-resuscitation in critically ill patients. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of a multi-disciplinary protocol for diuresis-guided de-resuscitation in the critically ill. Methods: This was a pre-post single-center pilot study within the medical intensive care unit (ICU) of a large academic medical center. Adult patients admitted to the Medical ICU receiving mechanical ventilation with either (1) clinical signs of volume overload via chest radiography or physical exam or (2) any cumulative fluid balance ≥ 0 mL since hospital admission were eligible for inclusion. Patients received diuresis per clinician discretion for a 2-year period (historical control) followed by a diuresis protocol for 1 year (intervention). Patients within the intervention group were matched in a 1:3 ratio with those from the historical cohort who met the study inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: A total of 364 patients were included, 91 in the protocol group and 273 receiving standard care. Protocolized diuresis was associated with a significant decrease in 72-h post-shock cumulative fluid balance [median, IQR − 2257 (− 5676-920) mL vs 265 (− 2283-3025) mL; p < 0.0001]. In-hospital mortality in the intervention group was lower compared to the historical group (5.5% vs 16.1%; p = 0.008) and higher ICU-free days (p = 0.03). However, no statistically significant difference was found in ventilator-free days, and increased rates of hypernatremia and hypokalemia were demonstrated. Conclusions: This study showed that a protocol for diuresis for de-resuscitation can significantly improve 72-h post-shock fluid balance with potential benefit on clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVE The impact of vasopressin and norepinephrine discontinuation order in the recovery phase of septic shock remains controversial. This systematic review and patient-level meta-analysis were performed to determine the impact of vasopressin and norepinephrine discontinuation order on clinically significant outcomes in the recovery phase of septic shock. METHODS Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, PubMed, and Clini-calTrials.gov were searched from inception through November 2018 for studies comparing outcomes after the discontinuation of vasopressin or norepinephrine in septic shock. Individual patient-level data were obtained from included studies and combined using a two-stage meta-analysis. RESULTS Six studies of low or moderate risk of bias with 957 patients were included. Clinically significant hypotension occurred more frequently when vasopressin was discontinued first compared to norepinephrine (60.7% versus 43.3%, respectively). First discontinuation of norepinephrine compared to vasopressin had lower pooled odds of developing clinically significant hypotension (odds ratio [OR] 0.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07-0.68, I 2 87%). No differences were detected in short-term mortality (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.67-1.86, I 2 45%), intensive care unit length of stay (mean difference 0.15 day, 95% CI À1.58 to 1.88, I 2 21%), or hospital length of stay (mean difference 1.65 days, 95% CI À0.47 to 3.76, I 2 0%). CONCLUSIONS Discontinuation of norepinephrine prior to vasopressin during the recovery phase of septic shock resulted in less clinically significant hypotension but no difference in mortality or lengths of stay. Larger, prospective studies evaluating the impact of relative vasopressin deficiency and norepinephrine and vasopressin discontinuation order and timing on patient-centered outcomes are needed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.