23 Aug 12

Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer’s acetate in severe sepsis

Posted in Acute Kidney Injury/RRT, Fluid management, Sepsis at 1:00 by Laci

By A Perner, N Haase, A Guttormsen, J Tenhunen, G Klemenzson, A Åneman, K Madsen, et al for the 6S Trial Group and the Scandinavian Critical Care Trials Group

N Engl J Med 2012; 367:124-134

Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) is widely used for fluid resuscitation in intensive care units (ICUs), but its safety and efficacy have not been established in patients with severe sepsis.

In this multicenter, parallel-group, blinded trial, we randomly assigned patients with severe sepsis to fluid resuscitation in the ICU with either 6% HES 130/0.42 (Tetraspan) or Ringer’s acetate at a dose of up to 33 ml per kilogram of ideal body weight per day. The primary outcome measure was either death or end-stage kidney failure (dependence on dialysis) at 90 days after randomization.

Of the 804 patients who underwent randomization, 798 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population. The two intervention groups had similar baseline characteristics. At 90 days after randomization, 201 of 398 patients (51%) assigned to HES 130/0.42 had died, as compared with 172 of 400 patients (43%) assigned to Ringer’s acetate (relative risk, 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.36; P=0.03); 1 patient in each group had end-stage kidney failure. In the 90-day period, 87 patients (22%) assigned to HES 130/0.42 were treated with renal-replacement therapy versus 65 patients (16%) assigned to Ringer’s acetate (relative risk, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.80; P=0.04), and 38 patients (10%) and 25 patients (6%), respectively, had severe bleeding (relative risk, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.94 to 2.48; P=0.09). The results were supported by multivariate analyses, with adjustment for known risk factors for death or acute kidney injury at baseline.

Patients with severe sepsis assigned to fluid resuscitation with HES 130/0.42 had an increased risk of death at day 90 and were more likely to require renal-replacement therapy, as compared with those receiving Ringer’s acetate.

31 Jan 10

Recently published papers: Renal support in acute kidney injury – is low dose the new high dose?

Posted in Acute Kidney Injury/RRT at 0:56 by Laci

By Y Syed J Tomlinson and L Forni

Critical Care 2009, 13:1014

Despite 21st century definitions, the management of acute kidney injury remains steadfastly rooted in the 20th century with treatment being principally supportive. Protection from potential causative agents is an essential part of management and to that end protection against contrast-induced nephropathy has received yet more attention. When optimization of volume status, haemodynamic parameters, electrolyte and acid-base disturbances have failed we turn to renal replacement therapy. The time ‘bought’ on renal support gives a period for renal recovery but although renal replacement therapy is widely employed, many management issues remain unanswered, including the timing, duration and the dose of treatment. In contrast to respiratory support for acute lung injury, for example, there is a paucity of large randomized studies addressing these fundamental issues. We describe some recent studies focusing on these issues with the hope that they may lead to better treatment for our patients.

18 Jan 10

Intensity of continuous renal-replacement therapy in critically ill patients

Posted in Acute Kidney Injury/RRT at 1:33 by Laci

By The RENAL Replacement Therapy Study Investigators

NEJM 2009;361:1627-1638

The optimal intensity of continuous renal-replacement therapy remains unclear. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial to compare the effect of this therapy, delivered at two different levels of intensity, on 90-day mortality among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury.

We randomly assigned critically ill adults with acute kidney injury to continuous renal-replacement therapy in the form of postdilution continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration with an effluent flow of either 40 ml per kilogram of body weight per hour (higher intensity) or 25 ml per kilogram per hour (lower intensity). The primary outcome measure was death within 90 days after randomization.

Of the 1508 enrolled patients, 747 were randomly assigned to higher-intensity therapy, and 761 to lower-intensity therapy with continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration. Data on primary outcomes were available for 1464 patients (97.1%): 721 in the higher-intensity group and 743 in the lower-intensity group. The two study groups had similar baseline characteristics and received the study treatment for an average of 6.3 and 5.9 days, respectively (P=0.35). At 90 days after randomization, 322 deaths had occurred in the higher-intensity group and 332 deaths in the lower-intensity group, for a mortality of 44.7% in each group (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.23; P=0.99). At 90 days, 6.8% of survivors in the higher-intensity group (27 of 399), as compared with 4.4% of survivors in the lower-intensity group (18 of 411), were still receiving renal-replacement therapy (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.86 to 2.92; P=0.14). Hypophosphatemia was more common in the higher-intensity group than in the lower-intensity group (65% vs. 54%, P<0.001).

In critically ill patients with acute kidney injury, treatment with higher-intensity continuous renal-replacement therapy did not reduce mortality at 90 days.

03 Jan 09

Filter survival time and blood products requirement in patients with severe sepsis receiving drotrecogin alfa (activated) and requiring renal replacement therapy

Posted in Acute Kidney Injury/RRT, rhAPC at 0:51 by Laci

By L Camporota, E Corno, E Menaldo, J Smith, K Lei, R Beale and D Wyncoll

Critical Care 2008;12:R163

Drotrecogin alfa (activated) (DrotAA) is licensed for the treatment of severe sepsis with multiple organ failure. Patients with severe sepsis on renal replacement therapy (RRT), who typically receive additional anticoagulation to prevent circuit clotting, may be at higher risk of bleeding when DrotAA is administered in addition to standard anticoagulation. However, the effects of DrotAA on filter duration in the absence of additional anticoagulation are not established. The aim of this study was to analyse the filter survival time (FST), and to quantify the requirement of packed red cells (PRC) and blood products during DrotAA infusion.

This was a single-centre, retrospective observational study conducted in an adult intensive care unit (ICU). Thirty-five patients with severe sepsis who had received both RRT and DrotAA were identified, and all relevant clinical and laboratory data were retrieved from the departmental electronic patient record. We compared haemofilter parameters, blood products requirement and haemodynamic data recorded during RRT and the infusion of DrotAA with those recorded on RRT with standard anticoagulation after the DrotAA infusion had been completed (post-DrotAA).

The proportion of filter changes due to filter clotting was similar during DrotAA infusion and with conventional anticoagulation post-DrotAA infusion. There was no difference in the FST and filter parameters during DrotAA in the presence or absence of additional anticoagulation with heparin or epoprostenol. A similar proportion of patients required red cell transfusion, although a greater proportion of patients received platelet and fresh frozen plasma (FFP) during DrotAA infusion compared to the post-DrotAA period with no difference between medical and surgical patients.

Additional anticoagulation during DrotAA infusion does not appear to improve FST. The use of DrotAA in patients with severe sepsis requiring RRT is safe and is not associated with an increased need for PRC transfusion or major bleeding events.

Google PageRank