Search

Background: Renal injury is a common perioperative complication. The adoption of renal endpoints, standardised and valid for use in perioperative clinical trials, would enhance the quality of perioperative clinical research. The Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative was established to derive standardised endpoints for use in perioperative clinical trials., Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify renal endpoints currently reported in perioperative clinical trials. In parallel, an initial list of candidate endpoints was developed based on renal theme group expertise. A multi-round Delphi consensus process was used to refine this list and produce a suite of recommended perioperative renal outcome measures., Results: Based on our systematic review, 63 studies were included for analysis. Marked heterogeneity and imprecision of endpoint definitions were observed. Our initial list of candidate endpoints included 10 endpoints for consideration. The response rates for Delphi rounds 1, 2, and 3 were 89% (n=16), 90% (n=75), and 100% (n=6), respectively. A final list of four renal endpoints was identified: acute kidney injury defined by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) consensus criteria, acute kidney disease defined by ≥30% decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate from baseline at 30 days after operation in patients meeting the acute-kidney-injury criteria within 7 days of surgery, the composite of death or renal replacement therapy, and the Major Adverse Kidney Events (MAKE) composite., Conclusions: We identified four key renal outcome measures that should be considered for use in perioperative clinical trials. Using standardised definitions to capture and report these endpoints will facilitate improved benchmarking and meta-analysis of future trials., (Copyright © 2018 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent complication of critical illness and carries a significant risk of short- and long-term mortality, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and cardiovascular events. The degree of renal recovery from AKI may substantially affect these long-term endpoints. Therefore maximising recovery of renal function should be the goal of any AKI prevention and treatment strategy. Defining renal recovery is far from straightforward due in part to the limitations of the tests available to assess renal function. Here, we discuss common pitfalls in the evaluation of renal recovery and provide suggestions for improved assessment in the future. We review the epidemiology of renal recovery and of the association between AKI and the development of CKD. Finally, we stress the importance of post-discharge follow-up of AKI patients and make suggestions for its incorporation into clinical practice. Summary key points are that risk factors for non-recovery of AKI are age, CKD, comorbidity, higher severity of AKI and acute disease scores. Second, AKI and CKD are mutually related and seem to have a common denominator. Third, despite its limitations full recovery of AKI may best be defined as the absence of AKI criteria, and partial recovery as a fall in AKI stage. Fourth, after an episode of AKI, serial follow-up measurements of serum creatinine and proteinuria are warranted to diagnose renal impairment and prevent further progression. Measures to promote recovery are similar to those preventing renal harm. Specific interventions promoting repair are still experimental.

There is a paucity of high-quality evidence to guide clinicians on thresholds for commencement of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI), and wide international practice variation. Wald et al. report a pilot randomized trial examining accelerated use of RRT for moderate AKI in the intensive care unit, providing a workable design for a definitive trial examining the timing of RRT in critical illness.

Traditionally, renal ischemia has been regarded as central to the pathogenesis of sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (SA-AKI). Accordingly, hemodynamic management of SA-AKI has emphasized restoration of renal perfusion, whereas, experimentally, ischemia reperfusion models have been emphasized. However, in human beings, SA-AKI usually is accompanied by hyperdynamic circulation. Moreover, clinical and experimental evidence now suggests the importance of inflammatory mechanisms in the development of AKI and microcirculatory dysfunction more than systemic alteration in renal perfusion. In this review, we examine systemic, regional, and microcirculatory hemodynamics in SA-AKI, and attempt to rationalize the hemodynamic management of this condition., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: To review recent studies and information on the relationship between fluid administration and kidney function in critically ill patients., Recent Findings: There is little evidence from large multicenter trials to direct fluid therapy in patients at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Evidence of benefit for fluid administration from single center studies of fluid resuscitation to hemodynamic goals needs to be weighed against evidence of harm associated with fluid overload in large observational studies. The composition of intravenous fluid may affect the risk of AKI. Even latest-generation hydroxyethyl starches increase the risk of severe AKI in general and septic ICU patients. Isotonic saline has been associated with greater incidence of AKI in comparison to buffered crystalloids. Experimentally, infusion of saline results in reduction in renal perfusion in comparison to buffered solutions., Summary: Clinicians need to weigh the balance between adequate resuscitation of cardiac output and avoidance of fluid overload. Protocolized resuscitation to hemodynamic goals may help achieve these conflicting goals at least in the early phases of critical illness. In critically ill patients with, or at risk of, AKI, clinicians should avoid starch and, possibly, saline solutions.

Purpose of Review: Intravenous fluids are widely administered in the ICU with the intention of preventing or ameliorating acute kidney injury (AKI). This review focuses on recent studies examining fluid administration and renal function in critical illness to critically examine conventional justifications for fluid administration., Recent Findings: Early, targeted, resuscitation of inadequate cardiac output in shock may have a beneficial effect on organ function and patient outcome. However, experimental evidence suggests the relationship between fluid administration and an increase in renal oxygen delivery is weak, whereas any beneficial effects from fluid administration can be short lived. Conversely, evidence associating fluid overload and adverse outcomes is strengthening, whereas more restrictive fluid administration does not seem to predispose to clinically significant AKI in many situations. Furthermore, concerns persist that some colloid or high chloride concentration solutions may directly impair renal function independent of volume overload., Summary: Adequate volume resuscitation remains a cornerstone to the emergent treatment of critical illness. However, continued fluid administration and positive fluid balances have not been shown to improve renal outcomes and may worsen overall prognosis in AKI. Concerns about renal dysfunction should not deter clinicians from adopting more restrictive approaches to fluid administration.

Background: In the critically ill, ischemia secondary to decreased renal blood flow (RBF) is believed to be central to the pathogenesis of acute renal failure (ARF); however, the scientific basis for this conclusion has not been systematically evaluated., Methods: Systematic interrogation of the Pubmed database, and screening bibliographies of retrieved reports, for studies of human ARF where RBF was measured., Results: Thirty-two articles published between 1944 and 2008 describing RBF in 373 patients with ARF were identified. Overall, mean RBF during ARF was 387 ml/min. It was 329 ml/min when estimated by clearance-based techniques (15 studies) and 471 ml/min when measured with nonclearance-based techniques (17 studies). Only 46 patients had measurements in the intensive care unit where mean RBF was 306 ml/min. Normal RBF was reported in 14 publications, mean 1,192 ml/min., Conclusions: Limited information is available on RBF during ARF in the critically ill. Measurements in contemporary patients are required to further our understanding of this condition., (Copyright 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.)