In patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI) but no urgent indication for renal replacement therapy (RRT), the optimal time to initiate RRT remains controversial. While starting RRT preemptively may have benefits, this may expose patients to unnecessary RRT. To study this, we conducted a 12-center open-label pilot trial of critically ill adults with volume replete severe AKI. Patients were randomized to accelerated (12 h or less from eligibility) or standard RRT initiation. Outcomes were adherence to protocol-defined time windows for RRT initiation (primary), proportion of eligible patients enrolled, follow-up to 90 days, and safety in 101 fully eligible patients (57 with sepsis) with a mean age of 63 years. Median serum creatinine and urine output at enrollment were 268 micromoles/l and 356 ml per 24 h, respectively. In the accelerated arm, all patients commenced RRT and 45/48 did so within 12 h from eligibility (median 7.4 h). In the standard arm, 33 patients started RRT at a median of 31.6 h from eligibility, of which 19 did not receive RRT (6 died and 13 recovered kidney function). Clinical outcomes were available for all patients at 90 days following enrollment, with mortality 38% in the accelerated and 37% in the standard arm. Two surviving patients, both randomized to standard RRT initiation, were still RRT dependent at day 90. No safety signal was evident in either arm. Our findings can inform the design of a large-scale effectiveness randomized control trial.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus and State-of-the-Science Statements are prepared by independent panels of health professionals and public representatives on the basis of 1) the results of a systematic literature review prepared under contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2) presentations by investigators working in areas relevant to the conference questions during a 2-day public session, 3) questions and statements from conference attendees during open discussion periods that are part of the public session, and 4) closed deliberations by the panel during the remainder of the second day and morning of the third. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of NIH or the U.S. government. The statement reflects the panel’s assessment of medical knowledge available at the time the statement was written. Thus, it provides a “snapshot in time” of the state of knowledge on the conference topic. When reading the statement, keep in mind that new knowledge is inevitably accumulating through medical research. The following statement is an abridged version of the panel’s report, which is available in full at http://consensus.nih.gov/2011/prostatefinalstatement.htm

Some b-blockers are efficiently removed from the circulation by hemodialysis ("high dialyzability") whereas others are not ("low dialyzability"). This characteristic may influence the effectiveness of the b-blockers among patients receiving long-term hemodialysis. To determine whether new use of a highdialyzability b-blocker compared with a low-dialyzability b-blocker associates with a higher rate of mortality in patients older than age 66 years receiving long-term hemodialysis, we conducted a propensity-matched population-based retrospective cohort study using the linked healthcare databases of Ontario, Canada. The high-dialyzability group (n=3294) included patients initiating atenolol, acebutolol, or metoprolol. The low-dialyzability group (n=3294) included patients initiating bisoprolol or propranolol. Initiation of a highversus low-dialyzability b-blocker was associated with a higher risk of death in the following 180 days (relative risk, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 1.8; P,0.01). Supporting this finding, we repeated the primary analysis in a cohort of patients not receiving hemodialysis and found no significant association between dialyzability and the risk of death (relative risk, 1.0; 95% confidence interval, 0.9 to 1.3; P=0.71). b-Blocker exposure was not randomly allocated in this study, so a causal relationship between dialyzability and mortality cannot be determined. However, our findings should raise awareness of this potentially important drug characteristic and prompt further study.

BackgroundPhysicians frequently search PubMed for information to guide patient care. More recently, Google Scholar has gained popularity as another freely accessible bibliographic database.ObjectiveTo compare the performance of searches in PubMed and Google Scholar.MethodsWe surveyed nephrologists (kidney specialists) and provided each with a unique clinical question derived from 100 renal therapy systematic reviews. Each physician provided the search terms they would type into a bibliographic database to locate evidence to answer the clinical question. We executed each of these searches in PubMed and Google Scholar and compared results for the first 40 records retrieved (equivalent to 2 default search pages in PubMed). We evaluated the recall (proportion of relevant articles found) and precision (ratio of relevant to nonrelevant articles) of the searches performed in PubMed and Google Scholar. Primary studies included in the systematic reviews served as the reference standard for relevant articles. We further documented whether relevant articles were available as free full-texts.ResultsCompared with PubMed, the average search in Google Scholar retrieved twice as many relevant articles (PubMed: 11%; Google Scholar: 22%; P<.001). Precision was similar in both databases (PubMed: 6%; Google Scholar: 8%; P=.07). Google Scholar provided significantly greater access to free full-text publications (PubMed: 5%; Google Scholar: 14%; P<.001).ConclusionsFor quick clinical searches, Google Scholar returns twice as many relevant articles as PubMed and provides greater access to free full-text articles.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the validity of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code N17x for acute kidney injury (AKI) in elderly patients in two settings: at presentation to the emergency department and at hospital admission.DesignA population-based retrospective validation study.SettingSouthwestern Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2010.ParticipantsElderly patients with serum creatinine measurements at presentation to the emergency department (n=36 049) or hospital admission (n=38 566). The baseline serum creatinine measurement was a median of 102 and 39 days prior to presentation to the emergency department and hospital admission, respectively.Main outcome measuresSensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of ICD-10 diagnostic coding algorithms for AKI using a reference standard based on changes in serum creatinine from the baseline value. Median changes in serum creatinine of patients who were code positive and code negative for AKI.ResultsThe sensitivity of the best-performing coding algorithm for AKI (defined as a ≥2-fold increase in serum creatinine concentration) was 37.4% (95% CI 32.1% to 43.1%) at presentation to the emergency department and 61.6% (95% CI 57.5% to 65.5%) at hospital admission. The specificity was greater than 95% in both settings. In patients who were code positive for AKI, the median (IQR) increase in serum creatinine from the baseline was 133 (62 to 288) µmol/l at presentation to the emergency department and 98 (43 to 200) µmol/l at hospital admission. In those who were code negative, the increase in serum creatinine was 2 (−8 to 14) and 6 (−4 to 20) µmol/l, respectively.ConclusionsThe presence or absence of ICD-10 code N17× differentiates two groups of patients with distinct changes in serum creatinine at the time of a hospital encounter. However, the code underestimates the true incidence of AKI due to a limited sensitivity.

No abstract

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01766687.

Background and objectivesIncreased water intake may benefit kidney function. Prior to initiating a larger randomised controlled trial (RCT), we examined the safety and feasibility of asking adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) to increase their water intake.Design, setting, participants and measurementsBeginning in October 2012, we randomly assigned 29 adults with stage 3 CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 30–60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and albuminuria) to one of the two groups of water intake: hydration (n=18) or standard (n=11). We asked the hydration group to increase their water intake by 1.0–1.5 L/day (in addition to usual intake, depending on sex and weight) for 6 weeks, while the control group carried on with their usual intake. Participants collected a 24 h urine sample at baseline and at 2 and 6 weeks after randomisation. Our primary outcome was the between-group difference in change in 24 h urine volume from baseline to 6 weeks.Results(63%)of participants were men, 81% were Caucasians and the average age was 61 years (SD 14 years). The average baseline eGFR was 40 mL/min/1.73 m2 (SD 11 mL/min/1.73 m2); the median albumin to creatinine ratio was 19 mg/mmol (IQR 6–74 mg/mmol). Between baseline and 6-week follow-up, the hydration group's average 24 h urine volume increased by 0.7 L/day (from 2.3 to 3.0 L/day) and the control group's 24 h urine decreased by 0.3 L/day (from 2.0 to 1.7 L/day; between-group difference in change: 0.9 L/day (95% CI 0.4 to 1.5; p=0.002)). We found no significant changes in urine, serum osmolality or electrolyte concentrations, or eGFR. No serious adverse events or changes in quality of life were reported.ConclusionsA pilot RCT indicates adults with stage 3 CKD can successfully and safely increase water intake by up to 0.7 L/day in addition to usual fluid intake.Trial registration Registered with Clinical Trials—government identifierNCT01753466.