Search

Background: Patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and cardiorenal syndrome (CRS) 1 have poor outcomes. Ultrafiltration (UF) is used to mechanically remove salt and water in ADHF patients with diuretic resistance. However, little is known about the outcomes of ADHF patients on inotropes and/or vasopressors who require continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) for both UF and solute clearance in severe acute kidney injury., Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 37 consecutive critically ill patients who were admitted for ADHF from 2005-13 and were on inotropes and/or vasopressors at the time of CRRT initiation. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality., Results: In-hospital mortality rate was 62%. Median survival was 15.5 days after CRRT initiation, and 10 months following hospital discharge. When comparing renal and cardiovascular variables for survivors and non-survivors at baseline, admission and CRRT initiation, survivors were less likely to need vasopressors. After controlling for multiple predictors, vasopressor use remained associated with time to death (HR 9.9; 95% CI 2.3-43.3; P = 0.002). Patients with isolated right ventricular dysfunction had an in-hospital mortality of 45% compared with 69% in those with left ventricular dysfunction (P = 0.27). Age of >70 years was associated with 100% in-hospital mortality., Conclusions: Rescue therapy using CRRT in refractory CRS1 was associated with high in-hospital mortality, especially when vasopressors were used and when patient age exceeded 70 years. Additionally, survivors had a poor long-term prognosis.

Background: Substantial efforts have been made toward defining the dose threshold of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) associated with improved survival in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Published studies have used prescribed effluent rates, expressed as total effluent volume (TEV) per weight and unit time (mL/kg/h), as a surrogate for dose. The purpose of this study was to compare differences in CRRT dose based on prescribed effluent rate, measured TEV and direct measurement of urea and creatinine clearance., Methods: We analyzed data that had been prospectively collected on 200 patients enrolled in a randomized trial comparing survival with a prescribed effluent rate of 20 mL/kg/h (standard dose) to 35 mL/kg/h (high dose) using pre-dilution continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF). Filters were changed every 72 h. Blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine (SCr), effluent urea nitrogen (EUN) and effluent creatinine (ECr) were collected daily. Actual delivered dose was calculated as: (EUN/BUN)*TEV for urea and (ECr/SCr)*TEV for creatinine. Data were available for 165 patients., Results: In both groups, prescribed dose differed significantly from the measured TEV dose (P < 0.001). In the standard dose group, there was no difference between the measured TEV dose and actual delivered urea and creatinine clearances. However, in the high-dose group, measured TEV dose differed significantly from delivered urea clearance by 7.1% (P < 0.001) and creatinine clearance by 13.9% (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Dose based on prescribed effluent rate or measured TEV is a poor substitute for actual CVVHDF creatinine and urea clearance.