This is the first multinational cross-sectional study on the epidemiology of AKI in ICU patients using the complete KDIGO criteria. We found that AKI occurred in more than half of ICU patients. Increasing AKI severity was associated with increased mortality, and AKI patients had worse renal function at the time of hospital discharge. Adjusted risks for AKI and mortality were similar across different continents and regions.

IntroductionAcute kidney injury (AKI) can evolve quickly and clinical measures of function often fail to detect AKI at a time when interventions are likely to provide benefit. Identifying early markers of kidney damage has been difficult due to the complex nature of human AKI, in which multiple etiologies exist. The objective of this study was to identify and validate novel biomarkers of AKI.MethodsWe performed two multicenter observational studies in critically ill patients at risk for AKI - discovery and validation. The top two markers from discovery were validated in a second study (Sapphire) and compared to a number of previously described biomarkers. In the discovery phase, we enrolled 522 adults in three distinct cohorts including patients with sepsis, shock, major surgery, and trauma and examined over 300 markers. In the Sapphire validation study, we enrolled 744 adult subjects with critical illness and without evidence of AKI at enrollment; the final analysis cohort was a heterogeneous sample of 728 critically ill patients. The primary endpoint was moderate to severe AKI (KDIGO stage 2 to 3) within 12 hours of sample collection.ResultsModerate to severe AKI occurred in 14% of Sapphire subjects. The two top biomarkers from discovery were validated. Urine insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7 (IGFBP7) and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2 (TIMP-2), both inducers of G1 cell cycle arrest, a key mechanism implicated in AKI, together demonstrated an AUC of 0.80 (0.76 and 0.79 alone). Urine [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] was significantly superior to all previously described markers of AKI (P <0.002), none of which achieved an AUC >0.72. Furthermore, [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] significantly improved risk stratification when added to a nine-variable clinical model when analyzed using Cox proportional hazards model, generalized estimating equation, integrated discrimination improvement or net reclassification improvement. Finally, in sensitivity analyses [TIMP-2]·[IGFBP7] remained significant and superior to all other markers regardless of changes in reference creatinine method.ConclusionsTwo novel markers for AKI have been identified and validated in independent multicenter cohorts. Both markers are superior to existing markers, provide additional information over clinical variables and add mechanistic insight into AKI.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01209169.

In patients with septic shock, the administration of fluids during initial hemodynamic resuscitation remains a major therapeutic challenge. We are faced with many open questions regarding the type, dose and timing of intravenous fluid administration. There are only four major indications for intravenous fluid administration: aside from resuscitation, intravenous fluids have many other uses including maintenance and replacement of total body water and electrolytes, as carriers for medications and for parenteral nutrition. In this paradigm-shifting review, we discuss different fluid management strategies including early adequate goal-directed fluid management, late conservative fluid management and late goal-directed fluid removal. In addition, we expand on the concept of the “four D’s” of fluid therapy, namely drug, dosing, duration and de-escalation. During the treatment of patients with septic shock, four phases of fluid therapy should be considered in order to provide answers to four basic questions. These four phases are the resuscitation phase, the optimization phase, the stabilization phase and the evacuation phase. The four questions are “When to start intravenous fluids?”, “When to stop intravenous fluids?”, “When to start de-resuscitation or active fluid removal?” and finally “When to stop de-resuscitation?” In analogy to the way we handle antibiotics in critically ill patients, it is time for fluid stewardship.

PurposeTo test whether the polymyxin B hemoperfusion (PMX HP) fiber column reduces mortality and organ failure in peritonitis-induced septic shock (SS) from abdominal infections.MethodProspective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in 18 French intensive care units from October 2010 to March 2013, enrolling 243 patients with SS within 12 h after emergency surgery for peritonitis related to organ perforation. The PMX HP group received conventional therapy plus two sessions of PMX HP. Primary outcome was mortality on day 28; secondary outcomes were mortality on day 90 and a reduction in the severity of organ failures based on Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores.ResultsPrimary outcome: day 28 mortality in the PMX HP group (n = 119) was 27.7 versus 19.5 % in the conventional group (n = 113), p = 0.14 (OR 1.5872, 95 % CI 0.8583–2.935). Secondary endpoints: mortality rate at day 90 was 33.6 % in PMX-HP versus 24 % in conventional groups, p = 0.10 (OR 1.6128, 95 % CI 0.9067–2.8685); reduction in SOFA score from day 0 to day 7 was −5 (−11 to 6) in PMX-HP versus −5 (−11 to 9), p = 0.78. Comparable results were observed in the predefined subgroups (presence of comorbidity; adequacy of surgery, <2 sessions of hemoperfusion) and for SOFA reduction from day 0 to day 3.ConclusionThis multicenter randomized controlled study demonstrated a non-significant increase in mortality and no improvement in organ failure with PMX HP treatment compared to conventional treatment of peritonitis-induced SS.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00134-015-3751-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In the IVOIRE trial, there was no evidence that HVHF at 70 mL/kg/h, when compared with contemporary SVHF at 35 mL/kg/h, leads to a reduction of 28-day mortality or contributes to early improvements in haemodynamic profile or organ function. HVHF, as applied in this trial, cannot be recommended for treatment of septic shock complicated by AKI.

Renal replacement therapies (RRTs) represent a cornerstone in the management of severe acute kidney injury. This area of intensive care and nephrology has undergone significant improvement and evolution in recent years. Continuous RRTs have been a major focus of new technological and treatment strategies. RRT is being used increasingly in the intensive care unit, not only for renal indications but also for other organ-supportive strategies. Several aspects related to RRT are now well established, but others remain controversial. In this review, we review the available RRT modalities, covering technical and clinical aspects. We discuss several controversial issues, provide some practical recommendations, and where possible suggest a research agenda for the future.

Although improving, the mortality from septic shock still remains high despite increased international awareness. As a consequence, much effort has focused on alternative treatment strategies in an effort to improve outcomes. The application of blood purification therapies to improve immune homeostasis has been suggested as one such method, but these approaches, such as high-volume continuous haemofiltration or cytokine and/or endotoxin removal, have enjoyed little success to date. More recently, the use of sorbent technologies has attracted much attention. These adsorbers are highly effective at removing inflammatory mediators, in particular, cytokines, from the bloodstream. This narrative review is the executive summary of meetings held throughout the 6th International Fluid Academy Days in Antwerp, Belgium (Nov 23–25, 2017), focusing on the current understanding regarding the use of such adsorbers in humans with septic shock. We followed a modified Delphi approach involving a combination of evidence appraisal together with expert opinion in order to achieve recommendations for practice and, importantly, future research.

In recent years, after all the attention has been focused on the dose for continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in sepsis and systemic inflammation response syndrome (SIRS), the relatively negative results of all those studies did urge our expectations on new approaches regarding CRRT in sepsis and SIRS. So far, after the failure of the major randomized studies on dose, attention is now drawn to new membranes that could better eliminate massive amounts of unbound mediators in wider spectrum and also in greater magnitude Nevertheless, for septic acute kidney injury, the recommended dose will remain 35 ml/kg/h until the IVOIRE (hIgh VOlume in Intensive Care) study will be published. In this new armamentarium, we have distinguished the first tools that can still be called membranes ranging from AN69 Surface Treated (ST), SEPTEX, polymethylmetacrylate, to Oxiris that can still run with a CRRT device. Polymyxin B is still a kind of membrane although it has a larger surface, but it can run in a hemoperfusion system and is also much more selective. Adsorptive columns and sorbents are not anymore membranes but are seen as cartridges as the surface is extremely huge when compared with that of membranes (more than 500 m). They can still run in a hemoperfusion device. At the very end, we do have apheresis or selective plasma exchange (also very close to sorbents and columns) but we have very few data up to now regarding sepsis. Regarding spectrum, CytoSorb seems to be very promising although it is not able to capture endotoxin and IL-10. Oxiris is also promising as it can capture endotoxin and cytokines. AN69 ST is very powerful to capture numerous cytokines and especially high-mobility group box 1 protein (a very upstream cytokine). Polymethylmetacrylate has also the power to capture endotoxin and numerous other cytokines probably with a larger magnitude than Oxiris although this is not proven. Lastly, high-porosity membranes (Septex) may play a role especially when used in continuous venovenous hemodialysis mode. At the end, if we look for a more enlarged spectrum and a higher magnitude, CytoSorb might be seen as the most promising although not having the ability to fix endotoxin. Future studies will tell us which membrane or sorbent will be most useful in the adjunctive treatment for sepsis.