Search

Critical illness is often complicated by acute kidney injury (AKI). In patients with severe AKI, renal replacement therapy (RRT) is deployed to address metabolic dysfunction and volume excess until kidney function recovers. This review is intended to provide a comprehensive update on key aspects of RRT prescription and delivery to critically ill patients. Recently completed trials have enhanced the evidence base regarding several RRT practices, most notably the timing of RRT initiation and anticoagulation for continuous therapies. Better evidence is still needed to clarify several aspects of care including optimal targets for ultrafiltration and effective strategies for RRT weaning and discontinuation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in the critically ill. Current standard of care mainly relies on identification of patients at risk, haemodynamic optimization, avoidance of nephrotoxicity and the use of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in established AKI. The detection of early biomarkers of renal tissue damage is a recent development that allows amending the late and insensitive diagnosis with current AKI criteria. Increasing evidence suggests that the consequences of an episode of AKI extend long beyond the acute hospitalization. Citrate has been established as the anticoagulant of choice for continuous RRT. Conflicting results have been published on the optimal timing of RRT and on the renoprotective effect of remote ischaemic preconditioning. Recent research has contradicted that acute tubular necrosis is the common pathology in AKI, that septic AKI is due to global kidney hypoperfusion, that aggressive fluid therapy benefits the kidney, that vasopressor therapy harms the kidney and that high doses of RRT improve outcome. Remaining uncertainties include the impact of aetiology and clinical context on pathophysiology, therapy and prognosis, the clinical benefit of biomarker-driven interventions, the optimal mode of RRT to improve short- and long-term patient and kidney outcomes, the contribution of AKI to failure of other organs and the optimal approach for assessing and promoting renal recovery. Based on the established gaps in current knowledge the trials that must have priority in the coming 10 years are proposed together with the definition of appropriate clinical endpoints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with incremental risk for death and chronic kidney disease and represents a mounting clinical challenge for healthcare professionals. Renal replacement therapy (RRT) use in ICU settings is rising, likely in response to similar trends in AKI, taken together with an ageing population burdened by high prevalence of multi-morbidity and high illness acuity. Numerous features of RRT prescription and delivery are not standardized, nor are they supported from high-quality evidence derived from randomized trials. Despite the publication of rigorous clinical practice guidelines focused on RRT for AKI that are intended to optimize the quality and reliability of RRT in ICU settings, practice patterns and outcomes continue to show significant variability. In this concise review, we aim to summarize new knowledge and recent advances for the provision of RRT for critically ill patients with AKI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Renal replacement therapy is increasingly utilized in the intensive care unit (ICU), of which continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is most common. Despite CRRT being a relatively invasive and resource intensive technology, there remains wide practice variation in its application. This systematic review appraised the evidence for quality indicators (QIs) of CRRT care in critically ill patients.Design: A comprehensive search strategy was developed and performed in five citation databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PubMed) and select grey literature sources. Two reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data using standardized forms. Each retrieved citation was appraised for quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data were summarized narratively.Measurements and Main Results: Our search yielded 8374 citations, of which 133 fulfilled eligibility. This included 97 cohort studies, 24 randomized controlled trials, 10 case-control studies, and 2 retrospective medical audits. The quality of retrieved studies was generally good. In total, 18 QIs were identified that were mentioned in 238 instances. Identified QIs were classified as related to structure (n = 4, 22.2 %), care processes (n = 9, 50.0 %), and outcomes (n = 5, 27.8 %). The most commonly mentioned QIs focused on filter lifespan (n = 98), small solute clearance (n = 46), bleeding (n = 30), delivered dose (n = 19), and treatment interruption (n = 5). Across studies, the definitions used for QIs evaluating similar constructs varied considerably. When identified, QIs were most commonly described as important (n = 144, 48.3 %), scientifically acceptable (n = 32, 10.7 %), and useable and/or feasible (n = 17, 5.7 %) by their primary study authors.Conclusions: We identified numerous potential QIs of CRRT care, characterized by heterogeneous definitions, varying quality of derivation, and limited evaluation. Further study is needed to prioritize a concise inventory of QIs to measure, improve, and benchmark CRRT care for critically ill patients.Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42015015530. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acute kidney injury (AKI) and sepsis carry consensus definitions. The simultaneous presence of both identifies septic AKI. Septic AKI is the most common AKI syndrome in ICU and accounts for approximately half of all such AKI. Its pathophysiology remains poorly understood, but animal models and lack of histological changes suggest that, at least initially, septic AKI may be a functional phenomenon with combined microvascular shunting and tubular cell stress. The diagnosis remains based on clinical assessment and measurement of urinary output and serum creatinine. However, multiple biomarkers and especially cell cycle arrest biomarkers are gaining acceptance. Prevention of septic AKI remains based on the treatment of sepsis and on early resuscitation. Such resuscitation relies on the judicious use of both fluids and vasoactive drugs. In particular, there is strong evidence that starch-containing fluids are nephrotoxic and decrease renal function and suggestive evidence that chloride-rich fluid may also adversely affect renal function. Vasoactive drugs have variable effects on renal function in septic AKI. At this time, norepinephrine is the dominant agent, but vasopressin may also have a role. Despite supportive therapies, renal function may be temporarily or completely lost. In such patients, renal replacement therapy (RRT) becomes necessary. The optimal intensity of this therapy has been established, while the timing of when to commence RRT is now a focus of investigation. If sepsis resolves, the majority of patients recover renal function. Yet, even a single episode of septic AKI is associated with increased subsequent risk of chronic kidney disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hemodynamic instability related to renal replacement therapy (HIRRT) is a frequent complication of all renal replacement therapy (RRT) modalities commonly used in the intensive care unit. HIRRT is associated with increased mortality and may impair kidney recovery. Our current understanding of the physiologic basis for HIRRT comes primarily from studies of end-stage kidney disease patients on maintenance hemodialysis in whom HIRRT is referred to as 'intradialytic hypotension'. Nonetheless, there are many studies that provide additional insights into the underlying mechanisms for HIRRT specifically in critically ill patients. In particular, recent evidence challenges the notion that HIRRT is almost entirely related to excessive ultrafiltration. Although excessive ultrafiltration is a key mechanism, multiple other RRT-related mechanisms may precipitate HIRRT and this could have implications for how HIRRT should be managed (e.g., the appropriate response might not always be to reduce ultrafiltration, particularly in the context of significant fluid overload). This review briefly summarizes the incidence and adverse effects of HIRRT and reviews what is currently known regarding the mechanisms underpinning it. This includes consideration of the evidence that exists for various RRT-related interventions to prevent or limit HIRRT. An enhanced understanding of the mechanisms that underlie HIRRT, beyond just excessive ultrafiltration, may lead to more effective RRT-related interventions to mitigate its occurrence and consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Polymyxin B hemoperfusion reduces blood endotoxin levels in sepsis. Endotoxin activity can be measured in blood with a rapid assay. Treating patients with septic shock and elevated endotoxin activity using polymyxin B hemoperfusion may improve clinical outcomes.Objective: To test whether adding polymyxin B hemoperfusion to conventional medical therapy improves survival compared with conventional therapy alone among patients with septic shock and high endotoxin activity.Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial involving 450 adult critically ill patients with septic shock and an endotoxin activity assay level of 0.60 or higher enrolled between September 2010 and June 2016 at 55 tertiary hospitals in North America. Last follow-up was June 2017.Interventions: Two polymyxin B hemoperfusion treatments (90-120 minutes) plus standard therapy completed within 24 hours of enrollment (n = 224 patients) or sham hemoperfusion plus standard therapy (n = 226 patients).Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was mortality at 28 days among all patients randomized (all participants) and among patients randomized with a multiple organ dysfunction score (MODS) of more than 9.Results: Among 450 eligible enrolled patients (mean age, 59.8 years; 177 [39.3%] women; mean APACHE II score 29.4 [range, 0-71 with higher scores indicating greater severity), 449 (99.8%) completed the study. Polymyxin B hemoperfusion was not associated with a significant difference in mortality at 28 days among all participants (treatment group, 84 of 223 [37.7%] vs sham group 78 of 226 [34.5%]; risk difference [RD], 3.2%; 95% CI, -5.7% to 12.0%; relative risk [RR], 1.09; 95% CI, 0.85-1.39; P = .49) or in the population with a MODS of more than 9 (treatment group, 65 of 146 [44.5%] vs sham, 65 of 148 [43.9%]; RD, 0.6%; 95% CI, -10.8% to 11.9%; RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.78-1.31; P = .92). Overall, 264 serious adverse events were reported (65.1% treatment group vs 57.3% sham group). The most frequent serious adverse events were worsening of sepsis (10.8% treatment group vs 9.1% sham group) and worsening of septic shock (6.6% treatment group vs 7.7% sham group).Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with septic shock and high endotoxin activity, polymyxin B hemoperfusion treatment plus conventional medical therapy compared with sham treatment plus conventional medical therapy did not reduce mortality at 28 days.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01046669. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Polymyxin B-immobilized hemoperfusion (PMX-HP) is an adjuvant therapy for sepsis or septic shock that clears circulating endotoxin. Prior trials have shown that PMX-HP improves surrogate endpoints. We aimed to conduct an evidence synthesis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PMX-HP in critically ill adult patients with sepsis or septic shock.Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Health Technology Assessment Database, CINAHL, "Igaku Chuo Zasshi", the National Institute of Health Clinical Trials Register, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry, the reference lists of retrieved articles, and publications by manufacturers of PMX-HP. The primary outcomes were 28-day all-cause mortality, the number of patients with at least one serious adverse event, and organ dysfunction scores. The GRADE methodology for the certainty of evidence was used.Results: Six trials (857 participants; weighted mean age 62.5 years) proved eligible. Patient-oriented primary outcomes were assessed. The pooled risk ratio (RR) for 28-day mortality associated with PMX-HP was 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-1.36; I 2 = 25%; n = 797]. The pooled RR for adverse events was 2.17 (95% CI 0.68-6.94; I 2 = 0%; n = 717). Organ dysfunction scores over 24-72 h after PMX-HP treatment did not change significantly (standardized mean difference - 0.26; 95% CI - 0.64 to 0.12; I 2 = 78%; n = 797). The certainty of the body of evidence was judged as low for both benefit and harm using the GRADE methodology.Conclusions: There is currently insufficient evidence to support the routine use of PMX-HP to treat patients with sepsis or septic shock.Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42016038356). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is the recommended modality of dialysis for critically ill patients with hemodynamic instability. Yet there remains significant variability in how CRRT is prescribed and delivered, and limited evidence-basis to guide practice.Methods: This is a prospective, multi-center observational study of patients undergoing CRRT. Initial enrollment phase will occur at 4 academic medical centers in North America over 5 years, with a target enrollment of 2000 patients. All adult patients (18-89 years of age) receiving CRRT will be eligible for inclusion; patients who undergo CRRT for less than 24 h will be excluded from analysis. Data collection will include patient characteristics at baseline and at time of CRRT initiation; details of CRRT prescription and delivery, including machine-generated treatment data; and patient outcomes.Discussion: The goal of this study is to establish a large comprehensive registry of critically ill adults receiving CRRT. Specific aims include describing variations in CRRT prescription and delivery across quality domains; validating quality measures for CRRT care by correlating processes and outcomes; and establishing a large registry for use in quality improvement and benchmarking efforts. For initial analyses, some particular areas of interest are anticoagulation protocols; approach to fluid overload; CRRT-related workload; and patient safety.Trial Registration: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 1/10/2014: NCT02034448. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) remains the dominant form of renal support among critically ill patients worldwide. Current clinical practice on CRRT prescription mostly relies on high quality studies suggesting no impact of CRRT dose on critically ill patients’ outcomes. Recent clin-ical practice guidelines have been developed based on these studies recommending a static prescribed CRRT dose of 20– 25 ml/kg/h. There is a rationale for renewed attention to CRRT prescription/practice based on the concept of dynamic solute control adapted to the changing clinical needs of critically ill patients. In response, Acute Disease Quality Initiative convened a 17th consensus meeting centered on reevaluation of CRRT. This work group developed 4 themes focused specifically on CRRT dose prescription, delivery and solute control that were summarized in a series of consensus statements, along with the identification of critical knowledge gaps. CRRT dose prescription and delivery can be based on effluent flow rate. Delivered dose should be routinely monitored to ensure coherence with prescribed dose. CRRT dose should be dynamic, in recognition of between- and within-patient variation in targeted solute control or unintended solute clearance. Quality measures specific for monitoring delivered CRRT dose have been proposed that require further validation, prior to implementation, into the practice of guiding optimal CRRT dosage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Engaging patients and family members as partners in research increases the relevance of study results and enhances patient-centered care; how to best engage patients and families in research is unknown. Methods: We tested a novel research approach that engages and trains patients and family members as researchers to see if we could understand and describe the experiences of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and their families. Former patients and family members conducted focus groups and interviews with patients (n = 11) and families of surviving (n = 14) and deceased (n = 7) patients from 13 ICUs in Alberta Canada, and analyzed data using conventional content analysis. Separate blinded qualitative researchers conducted an independent analysis. Results: Participants described three phases in the patient/family “ICU journey”; admission to ICU, daily care in ICU, and post-ICU experience. Admission to ICU was characterized by family shock and disorientation with families needing the presence and support of a provider. Participants described five important elements of daily care: honoring the patient’s voice, the need to know, decision-making, medical care, and culture in ICU. The post-ICU experience was characterized by the challenges of the transition from ICU to a hospital ward and long-term effects of critical illness. These “ICU journey” experiences were described as integral to appropriate interactions with the care team and comfort and trust in the ICU, which were perceived as essential for a community of caring. Participants provided suggestions for improvement: 1) provide a dedicated family navigator, 2) increase provider awareness of the fragility of family trust, 3) improve provider communication skills, 4) improve the transition from ICU to hospital ward, and 5) inform patients about the long-term effects of critical illness. Analyses by independent qualitative researchers identified similar themes. Conclusions: Patient and family member-led research is feasible and can identify opportunities for improving care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In shock, hypotension may contribute to inadequate oxygen delivery, organ failure and death. We conducted the Optimal Vasopressor Titration (OVATION) pilot trial to inform the design of a larger trial examining the effect of lower versus higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) targets for vasopressor therapy in shock.Methods: We randomly assigned critically ill patients who were presumed to suffer from vasodilatory shock regardless of admission diagnosis to a lower (60-65 mmHg) versus a higher (75-80 mmHg) MAP target. The primary objective was to measure the separation in MAP between groups. We also recorded days with protocol deviations, enrolment rate, cardiac arrhythmias and mortality for prespecified subgroups.Results: A total of 118 patients were enrolled from 11 centres (2.3 patients/site/month of screening). The between-group separation in MAP was 9 mmHg (95% CI 7-11). In the lower and higher MAP groups, we observed deviations on 12 versus 8% of all days on vasopressors (p = 0.059). Risks of cardiac arrhythmias (20 versus 36%, p = 0.07) and hospital mortality (30 versus 33%, p = 0.84) were not different between lower and higher MAP arms. Among patients aged 75 years or older, a lower MAP target was associated with reduced hospital mortality (13 versus 60%, p = 0.03) but not in younger patients.Conclusions: This pilot study supports the feasibility of a large trial comparing lower versus higher MAP targets for shock. Further research may help delineate the reasons for vasopressor dosing in excess of prescribed targets and how individual patient characteristics modify the response to vasopressor therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of renal replacement therapy ( RRT) for severe acute kidney injury ( AKI) is frequently necessary in the face of life-threatening complications; however, there is wide practice variation with respect to triggers for RRT initiation. Recent evidence suggests that RRT may be independently associated with impaired recovery following AKI. There are plausible mechanistic reasons why RRT may be harmful and this concept is supported by ancillary evidence in the form of studies that have assessed the impact of different modalities of RRT for AKI as well as some of the literature pertaining to initiation of chronic hemodialysis in end-stage kidney disease patients ( ESKD). As such, avoiding unnecessary RRT ( URRT) is a desirable goal. There is emerging evidence of strategies that may be effective to help limit URRT. These strategies primarily involve early identification of AKI and limiting iatrogenic harm once AKI is established. Further research into defining and preventing URRT may help improve the consistently poor outcomes following severe AKI with respect to development of chronic kidney disease and ESKD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The dilemma of whether and when to start renal replacement therapy among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury in the absence of conventional indications has long been a vexing challenge for clinicians. The lack of high-quality evidence has undoubtedly contributed decisional uncertainty and unnecessary practice variation. Recently, two randomized trials (ELAIN and AKIKI) reported specifically on the issue of the timing of initiation of renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. In this commentary, their fundamental differences in trial design, sample size, and widely discrepant findings are considered in context. While both trials are important contributions towards informing practice on this issue, additional evidence from large multicenter randomized trials is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Owing to an oversight by the authors, Figure 2 in this article was not the version intended for publication. The correct Figure 2, reproduced here, features footnote symbols and Figure 2b includes three studies as described in the main text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the optimal timing of renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury patients through high-profile randomized trials in initiation of registered respiratory therapist (RRT). The trials include French, multi-centre Artificial Kidney Initiation in Kidney Injury (AKIKI) and German single-centre Early Versus Late Initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy In Critically Ill Patients With Acute Kidney Injury (ELAIN).

This article reports the conclusions of a consensus expert conference on the basic principles and nomenclature of renal replacement therapy (RRT) currently utilized to manage acute kidney injury (AKI). This multidisciplinary consensus conference discusses common definitions, components, techniques, and operations of the machines and platforms used to deliver extracorporeal therapies, utilizing a "machine-centric" rather than a "patient-centric" approach. We provide a detailed description of the performance characteristics of membranes, filters, transmembrane transport of solutes and fluid, flows, and methods of measurement of delivered treatment, focusing on continuous renal replacement therapies (CRRT) which are utilized in the management of critically ill patients with AKI. This is a consensus report on nomenclature harmonization for principles of extracorporeal renal replacement therapies. Devices and operations are classified and defined in detail to serve as guidelines for future use of terminology in papers and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The epidemiologic characteristics of children and young adults with acute kidney injury have been described in single-center and retrospective studies. We conducted a multinational, prospective study involving patients admitted to pediatric intensive care units to define the incremental risk of death and complications associated with severe acute kidney injury.Methods: We used the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes criteria to define acute kidney injury. Severe acute kidney injury was defined as stage 2 or 3 acute kidney injury (plasma creatinine level ≥2 times the baseline level or urine output <0.5 ml per kilogram of body weight per hour for ≥12 hours) and was assessed for the first 7 days of intensive care. All patients 3 months to 25 years of age who were admitted to 1 of 32 participating units were screened during 3 consecutive months. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality.Results: A total of 4683 patients were evaluated; acute kidney injury developed in 1261 patients (26.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 25.6 to 28.2), and severe acute kidney injury developed in 543 patients (11.6%; 95% CI, 10.7 to 12.5). Severe acute kidney injury conferred an increased risk of death by day 28 after adjustment for 16 covariates (adjusted odds ratio, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.17 to 2.68); death occurred in 60 of the 543 patients (11.0%) with severe acute kidney injury versus 105 of the 4140 patients (2.5%) without severe acute kidney injury (P<0.001). Severe acute kidney injury was associated with increased use of mechanical ventilation and renal-replacement therapy. A stepwise increase in 28-day mortality was associated with worsening severity of acute kidney injury (P<0.001 by log-rank test). Assessment of acute kidney injury according to the plasma creatinine level alone failed to identify acute kidney injury in 67.2% of the patients with low urine output.Conclusions: Acute kidney injury is common and is associated with poor outcomes, including increased mortality, among critically ill children and young adults. (Funded by the Pediatric Nephrology Center of Excellence at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center and others; AWARE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01987921 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The optimal time to initiate renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury is controversial. We investigated the effect of such earlier versus later initiation of renal replacement therapy on the primary outcome of 28-day mortality and other patient-centered secondary outcomes.Design: We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to July 17, 2020, and included randomized controlled trials comparing earlier versus later renal replacement therapy.Setting: Multiple centers involved in eight trials.Patients: Total of 4,588 trial participants.Intervention: Two independents investigators screened and extracted data using a predefined form. We selected randomized controlled trials in critically ill adult patients with acute kidney injury and compared of earlier versus later initiation of renal replacement therapy regardless of modality.Measurements and Main Results: Overall, 28-day mortality was similar between earlier and later renal replacement therapy initiation (38.43% vs 38.06%, respectively; risk ratio, 1.01; [95% CI, 0.94-1.09]; I2 = 0%). Earlier renal replacement therapy, however, shortened hospital length of stay (mean difference, -2.14 d; [95% CI, -4.13 to -0.14]) and ICU length of stay (mean difference, -1.18 d; [95% CI, -1.95 to -0.42]). In contrast, later renal replacement therapy decreased the use of renal replacement therapy (relative risk, 0.69; [95% CI, 0.58-0.82]) and lowered the risk of catheter-related blood stream infection (risk ratio, 0.50, [95% CI, 0.29-0.86). Among survivors, renal replacement therapy dependence at day 28 was similar between earlier and later renal replacement therapy initiation (risk ratio, 0.98; [95% CI, 0.66-1.40]).Conclusions: Earlier or later initiation of renal replacement therapy did not affect mortality. However, earlier renal replacement therapy was associated with significantly shorter ICU and hospital length of stay, whereas later renal replacement therapy was associated with decreased use of renal replacement therapy and decreased risk of catheter-related blood stream infection. These findings can be used to guide the management of critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The timing of renal replacement therapy (RRT) for severe acute kidney injury is highly debated when no life-threatening complications are present. We assessed whether a strategy of delayed versus early RRT initiation affects 28-day survival in critically ill adults with severe acute kidney injury.Methods: In this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised trials published from April 1, 2008, to Dec 20, 2019, that compared delayed and early RRT initiation strategies in patients with severe acute kidney injury. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they included critically ill patients aged 18 years or older with acute kidney injury (defined as a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes [KDIGO] acute kidney injury stage 2 or 3, or, where KDIGO was unavailable, a renal Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 3 or higher). We contacted the principal investigator of each eligible trial to request individual patient data. From the included trials, any patients without acute kidney injury or who were not randomly allocated were not included in the individual patient data meta-analysis. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at day 28 after randomisation. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019125025).Findings: Among the 1031 studies identified, one study that met the eligibility criteria was excluded because the recruitment period was not recent enough, and ten (including 2143 patients) were included in the analysis. Individual patient data were available for nine studies (2083 patients), from which 1879 patients had severe acute kidney injury and were randomly allocated: 946 (50%) to the delayed RRT group and 933 (50%) to the early RRT group. 390 (42%) of 929 patients allocated to the delayed RRT group and who had available data did not receive RRT. The proportion of patients who died by day 28 did not significantly differ between the delayed RRT group (366 [44%] of 837) and the early RRT group (355 [43%] of 827; risk ratio 1·01 [95% CI 0·91 to 1·13], p=0·80), corresponding to an overall risk difference of 0·01 (95% CI -0·04 to 0·06). There was no heterogeneity across studies (I2=0%; τ2=0), and most studies had a low risk of bias.Interpretation: The timing of RRT initiation does not affect survival in critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury in the absence of urgent indications for RRT. Delaying RRT initiation, with close patient monitoring, might lead to a reduced use of RRT, thereby saving health resources.Funding: None. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consensus definitions have been reached for both acute kidney injury (AKI) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) and these definitions are now routinely used in research and clinical practice. The KDIGO guideline defines AKI as an abrupt decrease in kidney function occurring over 7 days or less, whereas CKD is defined by the persistence of kidney disease for a period of >90 days. AKI and CKD are increasingly recognized as related entities and in some instances probably represent a continuum of the disease process. For patients in whom pathophysiologic processes are ongoing, the term acute kidney disease (AKD) has been proposed to define the course of disease after AKI; however, definitions of AKD and strategies for the management of patients with AKD are not currently available. In this consensus statement, the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) proposes definitions, staging criteria for AKD, and strategies for the management of affected patients. We also make recommendations for areas of future research, which aim to improve understanding of the underlying processes and improve outcomes for patients with AKD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The optimum duration of antimicrobial treatment for patients with bacteremia is unknown. Our objectives were to determine duration of antimicrobial treatment provided to patients who have bacteremia in ICUs, to assess pathogen/patient factors related to treatment duration, and to assess the relationship between treatment duration and survival.Design: Retrospective cohort study.Settings: Fourteen ICUs across Canada.Patients: Patients with bacteremia and were present in the ICU at the time culture reported positive.Interventions: Duration of antimicrobial treatment for patients who had bacteremia in ICU.Measurements and Main Results: Among 1,202 ICU patients with bacteremia, the median duration of treatment was 14 days, but with wide variability (interquartile range, 9-17.5). Most patient characteristics were not associated with treatment duration. Coagulase-negative staphylococci were the only pathogens associated with shorter treatment (odds ratio, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.51-5.26). The urinary tract was the only source of infection associated with a trend toward lower likelihood of shorter treatment (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42-1.08); an unknown source of infection was associated with a greater likelihood of shorter treatment (odds ratio, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.17-3.91). The association of treatment duration and survival was unstable when analyzed based on timing of death.Conclusions: Critically ill patients who have bacteremia typically receive long courses of antimicrobials. Most patient/pathogen characteristics are not associated with treatment duration; survivor bias precludes a valid assessment of the association between treatment duration and survival. A definitive randomized controlled trial is needed to compare shorter versus longer antimicrobial treatment in patients who have bacteremia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]