Kelly V Liang1, Florentina E Sileanu2, Gilles Clermont3, Raghavan Murugan4, Francis Pike2, Paul M Palevsky5, John A Kellum6. 1. Renal-Electrolyte Division, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 2. Center for Critical Care Nephology, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and. 3. Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 4. Center for Critical Care Nephology, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 5. Renal-Electrolyte Division, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Center for Critical Care Nephology, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Renal Section, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 6. Renal-Electrolyte Division, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Center for Critical Care Nephology, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; kellumja@ccm.upmc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Observational evidence has suggested that RRT modality may affect recovery after AKI. It is unclear whether initial choice of intermittent hemodialysis or continuous RRT affects renal recovery, survival, or development of ESRD in critically ill patients when modality choice is made primarily on hemodynamics. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study examining adults (≥18 years old) admitted to intensive care units from 2000 to 2008 who received RRT for AKI and survived to hospital discharge or 90 days. We analyzed renal recovery (alive and not requiring RRT) and reasons for nonrecovery (death or ESRD) at 90 and 365 days. Conditional multivariable logistic regression was used to assess differences in renal recovery at 90 and 365 days between continuous RRT and intermittent hemodialysis. Models were stratified by propensity for continuous RRT and adjusted for age and reference creatinine. RESULTS: Of 4738 patients with Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes stage 3 AKI, 1338 (28.2%) received RRT, and 638 (47.7%) survived to hospital discharge (353 intermittent hemodialysis and 285 continuous RRT). Recovery from AKI was lower for intermittent hemodialysis versus continuous RRT at 90 days (66.6% intermittent hemodialysis versus 75.4% continuous RRT; P=0.02) but similar at 365 days (54.1% intermittent hemodialysis versus 59.6% continuous RRT; P=0.17). In multivariable analysis, there was no difference in odds of recovery at 90 or 365 days for patients initially treated with continuous RRT versus intermittent hemodialysis (90 days: odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.55; P=0.20; 365 days: odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 1.2; P=0.55). CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference in hazards for nonrecovery or reasons for nonrecovery (mortality or ESRD) with intermittent hemodialysis versus continuous RRT. These results suggest that, when initial RRT modality is chosen primarily on hemodynamics, renal recovery and clinical outcomes in survivors are similar between intermittent hemodialysis and continuous RRT.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Observational evidence has suggested that RRT modality may affect recovery after AKI. It is unclear whether initial choice of intermittent hemodialysis or continuous RRT affects renal recovery, survival, or development of ESRD in critically illpatients when modality choice is made primarily on hemodynamics. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study examining adults (≥18 years old) admitted to intensive care units from 2000 to 2008 who received RRT for AKI and survived to hospital discharge or 90 days. We analyzed renal recovery (alive and not requiring RRT) and reasons for nonrecovery (death or ESRD) at 90 and 365 days. Conditional multivariable logistic regression was used to assess differences in renal recovery at 90 and 365 days between continuous RRT and intermittent hemodialysis. Models were stratified by propensity for continuous RRT and adjusted for age and reference creatinine. RESULTS: Of 4738 patients with Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes stage 3 AKI, 1338 (28.2%) received RRT, and 638 (47.7%) survived to hospital discharge (353 intermittent hemodialysis and 285 continuous RRT). Recovery from AKI was lower for intermittent hemodialysis versus continuous RRT at 90 days (66.6% intermittent hemodialysis versus 75.4% continuous RRT; P=0.02) but similar at 365 days (54.1% intermittent hemodialysis versus 59.6% continuous RRT; P=0.17). In multivariable analysis, there was no difference in odds of recovery at 90 or 365 days for patients initially treated with continuous RRT versus intermittent hemodialysis (90 days: odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.55; P=0.20; 365 days: odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.72 to 1.2; P=0.55). CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference in hazards for nonrecovery or reasons for nonrecovery (mortality or ESRD) with intermittent hemodialysis versus continuous RRT. These results suggest that, when initial RRT modality is chosen primarily on hemodynamics, renal recovery and clinical outcomes in survivors are similar between intermittent hemodialysis and continuous RRT.
Authors: Antoine G Schneider; Rinaldo Bellomo; Sean M Bagshaw; Neil J Glassford; Serigne Lo; Min Jun; Alan Cass; Martin Gallagher Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Florentina E Sileanu; Raghavan Murugan; Nicole Lucko; Gilles Clermont; Sandra L Kane-Gill; Steven M Handler; John A Kellum Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Eric A J Hoste; Sean M Bagshaw; Rinaldo Bellomo; Cynthia M Cely; Roos Colman; Dinna N Cruz; Kyriakos Edipidis; Lui G Forni; Charles D Gomersall; Deepak Govil; Patrick M Honoré; Olivier Joannes-Boyau; Michael Joannidis; Anna-Maija Korhonen; Athina Lavrentieva; Ravindra L Mehta; Paul Palevsky; Eric Roessler; Claudio Ronco; Shigehiko Uchino; Jorge A Vazquez; Erick Vidal Andrade; Steve Webb; John A Kellum Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-07-11 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jimmy Waldrop; David L Ciraulo; Timothy P Milner; Douglas Gregori; Aaron S Kendrick; Charles M Richart; Robert A Maxwell; Donald E Barker Journal: Am Surg Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 0.688
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: Sean M Bagshaw; Michael Darmon; Marlies Ostermann; Fredric O Finkelstein; Ron Wald; Ashita J Tolwani; Stuart L Goldstein; David J Gattas; Shigehiko Uchino; Eric A Hoste; Stephane Gaudry Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-03-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Ron Wald; William Beaubien-Souligny; Rahul Chanchlani; Edward G Clark; Javier A Neyra; Marlies Ostermann; Samuel A Silver; Suvi Vaara; Alexander Zarbock; Sean M Bagshaw Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2022-09-06 Impact factor: 41.787
Authors: Chenxia Juan; Ye Zhu; Yan Chen; Yan Mao; Yan Zhou; Weiwei Zhu; Xufang Wang; Qian Wang Journal: Bioengineered Date: 2022-05 Impact factor: 6.832
Authors: L G Forni; M Darmon; M Ostermann; H M Oudemans-van Straaten; V Pettilä; J R Prowle; M Schetz; M Joannidis Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Nicolas Viallet; Vincent Brunot; Nils Kuster; Delphine Daubin; Noémie Besnard; Laura Platon; Aurèle Buzançais; Romaric Larcher; Olivier Jonquet; Kada Klouche Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 6.925