Search

Background: The incidence and outcome of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced kidney injury have been variably described. We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, correlates and outcomes of critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 complicated by acute kidney injury (AKI). Methods: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of 671 critically ill adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from 19 hospitals in China between January 1 to February 29, 2020. Data were captured on demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, acute physiology, laboratory parameters, interventions, and outcomes. The primary exposure was ICU admission for confirmed COVID-19 related critically illness. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included factors associated with AKI, organ dysfunction, treatment intensity, and health services use. Measurements and Main Results: Of 671 severe COVID-19 patients (median [IQR] 65 [56-73] years; male sex 65% (n = 434); hypertension 43% (n = 287) and APACHE II score 10 [7-14]), 39% developed AKI. Patients with AKI were older, had greater markers of inflammation and coagulation activation, and had greater acuity and organ dysfunction as presentation. Despite similar treatment with antivirals, patients with AKI had lower viral conversion negative rates than those without AKI. The 28-day mortality was much higher in AKI patients than patients without AKI (72% vs. 42%), and there was an increase in 28-day mortality according to the severity of AKI. Non-survivors were less likely to receive antiviral therapy [132 (70%) vs. 65 (88%)] compared with survivors and have lower viral negative conversion rate [17 (9%) vs. 47 (64%)]. Conclusions: Acute kidney injury was quite common in severe COVID-19 pneumonia, which associated with higher mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Current reports on acute kidney injury (AKI) in the intensive care unit (ICU) show wide variation in occurrence rate and are limited by study biases such as use of incomplete AKI definition, selected cohorts, or retrospective design. Our aim was to prospectively investigate the occurrence and outcomes of AKI in ICU patients. Methods: The Acute Kidney Injury-Epidemiologic Prospective Investigation (AKI-EPI) study was an international cross-sectional study performed in 97 centers on patients during the first week of ICU admission. We measured AKI by Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria, and outcomes at hospital discharge. Results: A total of 1032 ICU patients out of 1802 [57.3 %; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 55.0-59.6] had AKI. Increasing AKI severity was associated with hospital mortality when adjusted for other variables; odds ratio of stage 1 = 1.679 (95 % CI 0.890-3.169; p = 0.109), stage 2 = 2.945 (95 % CI 1.382-6.276; p = 0.005), and stage 3 = 6.884 (95 % CI 3.876-12.228; p < 0.001). Risk-adjusted rates of AKI and mortality were similar across the world. Patients developing AKI had worse kidney function at hospital discharge with estimated glomerular filtration rate less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m in 47.7 % (95 % CI 43.6-51.7) versus 14.8 % (95 % CI 11.9-18.2) in those without AKI, p < 0.001. Conclusions: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the prevention of acute kidney injury (AKI) components of cardio-renal syndromes (CRS). It states that type 1 acute cardio renal failure, which is characterized by an initial abrupt change in cardiovascular function, is prevented through blood pressure control, use of beta-adrenergic blockers (BB), and avoidance of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents. Furthermore, type 2 chronic CRS can be prevented through optimal intake of sodium and extracellular fluid volume.

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]

To describe the incidence and outcomes associated with early acute kidney injury (AKI) in septic shock and explore the association between duration from hypotension onset to effective antimicrobial therapy and AKI. Retrospective cohort study. A total of 4,532 adult patients with septic shock from 1989 to 2005. Intensive care units of 22 academic and community hospitals in Canada, the United States and Saudi Arabia. In total, 64.4% of patients with septic shock developed early AKI (i.e., within 24 h after onset of hypotension). By RIFLE criteria, 16.3% had risk, 29.4% had injury and 18.7% had failure. AKI patients were older, more likely female, with more co-morbid disease and greater severity of illness. Of 3,373 patients (74.4%) with hypotension prior to receiving effective antimicrobial therapy, the median (IQR) time from hypotension onset to antimicrobial therapy was 5.5 h (2.0–13.3). Patients with AKI were more likely to have longer delays to receiving antimicrobial therapy compared to those with no AKI [6.0 (2.3–15.3) h for AKI vs. 4.3 (1.5–10.8) h for no AKI, P < 0.0001). A longer duration to antimicrobial therapy was also associated an increase in odds of AKI [odds ratio (OR) 1.14, 95% CI 1.10–1.20, P < 0.001, per hour (log-transformed) delay]. AKI was associated with significantly higher odds of death in both ICU (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.60–1.9, P < 0.0001) and hospital (OR 1.62, 95% CI, 1.5–1.7, P < 0.0001). By Cox proportional hazards analysis, including propensity score-adjustment, each RIFLE category was independently associated with a greater hazard ratio for death (risk 1.31; injury 1.45; failure 1.56). Early AKI is common in septic shock. Delays to appropriate antimicrobial therapy may contribute to significant increases in the incidence of AKI. Survival was considerably lower for septic shock associated with early AKI, with increasing severity of AKI, and with increasing delays to appropriate antimicrobial therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides a systematic review of randomized trials comparing intermittent renal replacement therapy (IRRT) and continuous RRT (CRRT) modality for critically-ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). The review's objectives were to evaluate whether modality influences mortality, renal recovery, treatment-related complications and physiologic outcomes. The study found no difference in mortality or renal recovery to RRT independence.

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]