No abstract

IMPORTANCE The US is currently an epicenter of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, yet few national data are available on patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of critical illness from COVID-19. OBJECTIVES To assess factors associated with death and to examine interhospital variation in treatment and outcomes for patients with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multicenter cohort study assessed 2215 adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) at 65 hospitals across the US from March 4 to April 4, 2020. EXPOSURES Patient-level data, including demographics, comorbidities, and organ dysfunction, and hospital characteristics, including number of ICU beds. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Multilevel logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with death and to examine interhospital variation in treatment and outcomes. RESULTS A total of 2215 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.5 [14.5] years; 1436 [64.8%] male; 1738 [78.5%] with at least 1 chronic comorbidity) were included in the study. At 28 days after ICU admission, 784 patients (35.4%) had died, 824 (37.2%) were discharged, and 607 (27.4%) remained hospitalized. At the end of study follow-up (median, 16 days; interquartile range, 8-28 days), 875 patients (39.5%) had died, 1203 (54.3%) were discharged, and 137 (6.2%) remained hospitalized. Factors independently associated with death included older age (Ն80 vs <40 years of age: odds ratio [OR], 11.15; 95% CI, 6.19-20.06), male sex (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.19-1.90), higher body mass index (Ն40 vs <25: OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.01-2.25), coronary artery disease (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.07-2.02), active cancer (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.35-3.43), and the presence of hypoxemia (PaO 2 :FIO 2 <100 vs Ն300 mm Hg: OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 2.11-4.08), liver dysfunction (liver Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 2 vs 0: OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.30-5.25), and kidney dysfunction (renal Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 4 vs 0: OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.46-4.05) at ICU admission. Patients admitted to hospitals with fewer ICU beds had a higher risk of death (<50 vs Ն100 ICU beds: OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.16-4.99). Hospitals varied considerably in the risk-adjusted proportion of patients who died (range, 6.6%-80.8%) and in the percentage of patients who received hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and other treatments and supportive therapies. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study identified demographic, clinical, and hospital-level risk factors that may be associated with death in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and can facilitate the identification of medications and supportive therapies to improve outcomes.

IMPORTANCE Therapies that improve survival in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. Tocilizumab, a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin 6 receptor, may counteract the inflammatory cytokine release syndrome in patients with severe COVID-19 illness. OBJECTIVE To test whether tocilizumab decreases mortality in this population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The data for this study were derived from a multicenter cohort study of 4485 adults with COVID-19 admitted to participating intensive care units (ICUs) at 68 hospitals across the US from March 4 to May 10, 2020. Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were categorized according to whether they received or did not receive tocilizumab in the first 2 days of admission to the ICU. Data were collected retrospectively until June 12, 2020. A Cox regression model with inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for confounding. EXPOSURES Treatment with tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Time to death, compared via hazard ratios (HRs), and 30-day mortality, compared via risk differences. RESULTS Among the 3924 patients included in the analysis (2464 male [62.8%]; median age, 62 [interquartile range {IQR}, 52-71] years), 433 (11.0%) received tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission. Patients treated with tocilizumab were younger (median age, 58 [IQR, 48-65] vs 63 [IQR, 52-72] years) and had a higher prevalence of hypoxemia on ICU admission (205 of 433 [47.3%] vs 1322 of 3491 [37.9%] with mechanical ventilation and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of <200 mm Hg) than patients not treated with tocilizumab. After applying inverse probability weighting, baseline and severity-of-illness characteristics were well balanced between groups. A total of 1544 patients (39.3%) died, including 125 (28.9%) treated with tocilizumab and 1419 (40.6%) not treated with tocilizumab. In the primary analysis, during a median follow-up of 27 (IQR, 14-37) days, patients treated with tocilizumab had a lower risk of death compared with those not treated with tocilizumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92). The estimated 30-day mortality was 27.5% (95% CI, 21.2%-33.8%) in the tocilizumab-treated patients and 37.1% (95% CI, 35.5%-38.7%) in the non-tocilizumab-treated patients (risk difference, 9.6%; 95% CI, 3.1%-16.0%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 in this cohort study, the risk of in-hospital mortality in this study was lower in patients treated with tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission compared with patients whose treatment did not include early use of tocilizumab. However, the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding, and further research from randomized clinical trials is needed.

No abstract

IMPORTANCE In the last decade, new biomarkers for acute kidney injury (AKI) have been identified and studied in clinical trials. Guidance is needed regarding how best to incorporate them into clinical practice. OBJECTIVE To develop recommendations on AKI biomarkers based on existing data and expert consensus for practicing clinicians and researchers. EVIDENCE REVIEW At the 23rd Acute Disease Quality Initiative meeting, a meeting of 23 international experts in critical care, nephrology, and related specialties, the panel focused on 4 broad areas, as follows: (1) AKI risk assessment; (2) AKI prediction and prevention; (3) AKI diagnosis, etiology, and management; and (4) AKI progression and kidney recovery. A literature search revealed more than 65 000 articles published between 1965 and May 2019. In a modified Delphi process, recommendations and consensus statements were developed based on existing data, with 90% agreement among panel members required for final adoption. Recommendations were graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations system. FINDINGS The panel developed 11 consensus statements for biomarker use and 14 research recommendations. The key suggestions were that a combination of damage and functional biomarkers, along with clinical information, be used to identify high-risk patient groups, improve the diagnostic accuracy of AKI, improve processes of care, and assist the management of AKI. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Current evidence from clinical studies supports the use of new biomarkers in prevention and management of AKI. Substantial gaps in knowledge remain, and more research is necessary.

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.

We report on the current practice of discontinuing continuous renal replacement therapy in a multinational setting. Urine output at the time of initial cessation of continuous renal replacement therapy was the most important predictor of successful discontinuation, especially if occurring without the administration of diuretics.

The incidence and prevalence of heart failure (HF) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are increasing, and as such a better understanding of the interface between both conditions is imperative for developing optimal strategies for their detection, prevention, diagnosis, and management. To this end, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) convened an international, multidisciplinary Controversies Conference titled Heart Failure in CKD. Breakout group discussions included (i) HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and nondialysis CKD, (ii) HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and nondialysis CKD, (iii) HFpEF and dialysis-dependent CKD, (iv) HFrEF and dialysis-dependent CKD, and (v) HF in kidney transplant patients. The questions that formed the basis of discussions are available on the KDIGO website http:// kdigo.org/conferences/heart-failure-in-ckd/, and the deliberations from the conference are summarized here.