Matthieu Legrand1, Michael Darmon, Michael Joannidis, Didier Payen. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care and SAMU, Lariboisière Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, University of Paris 7 Denis Diderot, 2 rue Ambroise-Paré, 75475, Paris Cedex 10, France. matthieu.m.legrand@gmail.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: The optimal management of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in critically ill patients remains a matter of debate, although insights have arisen from recent large trials. Nonetheless, little is known about the current practices and beliefs of intensivists. The goal of this study was to record current practices in RRT management among an international panel of intensivists. METHODS: An online questionnaire that included questions about RRT management in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury was sent to European Society of Intensive Care Medicine members in 2010. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-three intensivists from 50 countries responded. The respondents had an average of 12 (7-20) years of experience in ICUs, and most of them worked in mixed ICUs. Most of the intensivists were responsible for prescribing RRT (92.6 %). Half of the respondents reported using both intermittent haemodialysis and continuous renal replacement therapy techniques (CRRT), but most preferred using CRRT. The reasons for preferring CRRT were the perception of better haemodynamic stability, better therapeutic effect resulting from cytokine removal and easier fluid balance control. The intensivists used higher RRT doses in septic patients than in non-septic patients (p = 0.03). Finally, we observed an increasing inclination towards the early use of RRT among the intensivists. CONCLUSION: CRRT remains the preferred technique for most intensivists in Europe, and a large proportion of the participating intensivists used RRT prescription doses similar to those proposed a decade ago. Our results provide insights into the motivations of intensivists while presenting the technique that may help in selecting control groups for future trials.
PURPOSE: The optimal management of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in critically illpatients remains a matter of debate, although insights have arisen from recent large trials. Nonetheless, little is known about the current practices and beliefs of intensivists. The goal of this study was to record current practices in RRT management among an international panel of intensivists. METHODS: An online questionnaire that included questions about RRT management in critically illpatients with acute kidney injury was sent to European Society of Intensive Care Medicine members in 2010. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-three intensivists from 50 countries responded. The respondents had an average of 12 (7-20) years of experience in ICUs, and most of them worked in mixed ICUs. Most of the intensivists were responsible for prescribing RRT (92.6 %). Half of the respondents reported using both intermittent haemodialysis and continuous renal replacement therapy techniques (CRRT), but most preferred using CRRT. The reasons for preferring CRRT were the perception of better haemodynamic stability, better therapeutic effect resulting from cytokine removal and easier fluid balance control. The intensivists used higher RRT doses in septic patients than in non-septic patients (p = 0.03). Finally, we observed an increasing inclination towards the early use of RRT among the intensivists. CONCLUSION: CRRT remains the preferred technique for most intensivists in Europe, and a large proportion of the participating intensivists used RRT prescription doses similar to those proposed a decade ago. Our results provide insights into the motivations of intensivists while presenting the technique that may help in selecting control groups for future trials.
Authors: C Ronco; M Zanella; A Brendolan; M Milan; G Canato; N Zamperetti; R Bellomo Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Paul M Palevsky; Jane Hongyuan Zhang; Theresa Z O'Connor; Glenn M Chertow; Susan T Crowley; Devasmita Choudhury; Kevin Finkel; John A Kellum; Emil Paganini; Roland M H Schein; Mark W Smith; Kathleen M Swanson; B Taylor Thompson; Anitha Vijayan; Suzanne Watnick; Robert A Star; Peter Peduzzi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Max Bell; Fredrik Granath; Staffan Schön; Anders Ekbom; Claes-Roland Martling Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2007-03-16 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Kevin S Akers; Matthew P Rowan; Krista L Niece; Ian J Stewart; Katrin Mende; Jason M Cota; Clinton K Murray; Kevin K Chung Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: M Schmitz; P J Heering; R Hutagalung; R Schindler; M I Quintel; F M Brunkhorst; S John; A Jörres Journal: Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed Date: 2015-03-28 Impact factor: 0.840
Authors: Anders Perner; Andrew Rhodes; Bala Venkatesh; Derek C Angus; Ignacio Martin-Loeches; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jean-Louis Vincent; John Marshall; Konrad Reinhart; Michael Joannidis; Steven M Opal Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Giuseppe Citerio; Jan Bakker; Matteo Bassetti; Dominique Benoit; Maurizio Cecconi; J Randall Curtis; Glenn Hernandez; Margaret Herridge; Samir Jaber; Michael Joannidis; Laurent Papazian; Mark Peters; Pierre Singer; Martin Smith; Marcio Soares; Antoni Torres; Antoine Vieillard-Baron; Jean-François Timsit; Elie Azoulay Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-12-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Zhikang Ye; Ying Wang; Long Ge; Gordon H Guyatt; David Collister; Waleed Alhazzani; Sean M Bagshaw; Emilie P Belley-Cote; Fang Fang; Liangying Hou; Philipp Kolb; Francois Lamontagne; Simon Oczkowski; Lonnie Pyne; Christian Rabbat; Matt Scaum; Borna Tadayon Najafabadi; Wimonchat Tangamornsuksan; Ron Wald; Qi Wang; Michael Walsh; Liang Yao; Linan Zeng; Abdullah Mohammed Algarni; Rachel J Couban; Paul Elias Alexander; Bram Rochwerg Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2021-05-12