Initiation of continuous renal replacement therapy versus intermittent hemodialysis in critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury: a secondary analysis of STARRT-AKI trial.

There is controversy regarding the optimal renal-replacement therapy (RRT) modality for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). We conducted a secondary analysis of the STandard versus Accelerated Renal Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial to compare outcomes among patients who initiated RRT with either continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) or intermittent hemodialysis (IHD). We generated a propensity score for the likelihood of receiving CRRT and used inverse probability of treatment with overlap-weighting to address baseline inter-group differences. The primary outcome was a composite of death or RRT dependence at 90-days after randomization. We identified 1590 trial participants who initially received CRRT and 606 who initially received IHD. The composite outcome of death or RRT dependence at 90-days occurred in 823 (51.8%) patients who commenced CRRT and 329 (54.3%) patients who commenced IHD (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.09). After balancing baseline characteristics with overlap weighting, initial receipt of CRRT was associated with a lower risk of death or RRT dependence at 90-days compared with initial receipt of IHD (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.66-0.99). This association was predominantly driven by a lower risk of RRT dependence at 90-days (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.39-0.94). In critically ill patients with severe AKI, initiation of CRRT, as compared to IHD, was associated with a significant reduction in the composite outcome of death or RRT dependence at 90-days

Acute kidney disease and renal recovery: Consensus report of the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) 16 Workgroup

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

Acute kidney disease and renal recovery: Consensus report of the Acute Disease Quality Initiative (ADQI) 16 Workgroup

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

Quality Improvement Goals for Acute Kidney Injury

AKI is a global concern with a high incidence among patients across acute care settings. AKI is associated with significant clinical consequences and increased health care costs. Preventive measures, as well as rapid identification of AKI, have been shown to improve outcomes in small studies. Providing high-quality care for patients with AKI or those at risk of AKI occurs across a continuum that starts at the community level and continues in the emergency department, hospital setting, and after discharge from inpatient care. Improving the quality of care provided to these patients, plausibly mitigating the cost of care and improving short- and long-term outcomes, are goals that have not been universally achieved. Therefore, understanding how the management of AKI may be amenable to quality improvement programs is needed. Recognizing this gap in knowledge, the 22nd Acute Disease Quality Initiative meeting was convened to discuss the evidence, provide recommendations, and highlight future directions for AKI-related quality measures and care processes. Using a modified Delphi process, an international group of experts including physicians, a nurse practitioner, and pharmacists provided a framework for current and future quality improvement projects in the area of AKI. Where possible, best practices in the prevention, identification, and care of the patient with AKI were identified and highlighted. This article provides a summary of the key messages and recommendations of the group, with an aim to equip and encourage health care providers to establish quality care delivery for patients with AKI and to measure key quality indicators

Blood culture collection in patients with acute kidney injury receiving renal replacement therapy: an observational study

Critically ill patients receiving renal replacement therapy (RRT) for acute kidney injury (AKI) have high reported intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Blood culture (BC) collection practices in this population have to date been poorly characterised, specifically in regards to the influence of RRT on the clinical triggers for such an investigation. Utilising our electronic clinical information system, we conducted a retrospective observational study of patients admitted to a 30-bed tertiary level ICU and requiring RRT over a four-year period. Patients with a history of chronic kidney disease, prior RRT or ICU length-of-stay (LOS

Timing of Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury.

Acute kidney injury is common in critically ill patients, many of whom receive renal-replacement therapy. However, the most effective timing for the initiation of such therapy remains uncertain. We conducted a multinational, randomized, controlled trial involving critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury. Patients were randomly assigned to receive an accelerated strategy of renal-replacement therapy (in which therapy was initiated within 12 hours after the patient had met eligibility criteria) or a standard strategy (in which renal-replacement therapy was discouraged unless conventional indications developed or acute kidney injury persisted for >72 hours). The primary outcome was death from any cause at 90 days. Of the 3019 patients who had undergone randomization, 2927 (97.0%) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (1465 in the accelerated-strategy group and 1462 in the standard-strategy group). Of these patients, renal-replacement therapy was performed in 1418 (96.8%) in the accelerated-strategy group and in 903 (61.8%) in the standard-strategy group. At 90 days, death had occurred in 643 patients (43.9%) in the accelerated-strategy group and in 639 (43.7%) in the standard-strategy group (relative risk, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 1.09; P = 0.92). Among survivors at 90 days, continued dependence on renal-replacement therapy was confirmed in 85 of 814 patients (10.4%) in the accelerated-strategy group and in 49 of 815 patients (6.0%) in the standard-strategy group (relative risk, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.24 to 2.43). Adverse events occurred in 346 of 1503 patients (23.0%) in the accelerated-strategy group and in 245 of 1489 patients (16.5%) in the standard-strategy group (P<0.001). Among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury, an accelerated renal-replacement strategy was not associated with a lower risk of death at 90 days than a standard strategy. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; STARRT-AKI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02568722.)