| Literature DB >> 28245793 |
Girish Chandra Bhatt1, Rashmi Ranjan Das2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in the critically ill patients and associated with a substantial morbidity and mortality. Severe AKI may be associated with up to 60% hospital mortality. Over the years, renal replacement therapy (RRT) has emerged as the mainstay of the treatment for AKI. However, the exact timing of initiation of RRT for better patient outcome is still debatable with conflicting data from randomized controlled trials. Thus, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of "early" versus "late" initiation of RRT.Entities:
Keywords: Acute kidney Injury (AKI); Renal replacement therapy (RRT); Timing
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28245793 PMCID: PMC5331682 DOI: 10.1186/s12882-017-0486-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Nephrol ISSN: 1471-2369 Impact factor: 2.388
Fig. 1PRISMA flow diagram
Characteristics of the included studies
| Study author | Setting, Country | Participants | Intervention | Outcomes measured | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pursnani 1997 [ | India | Number: 35 (Early RRT = 18; Late RRT = 17 | Early RRT = Prophylactic hemodialysis was performed | Mortality, complications and hospital stay | Method of randomization not given. Blinding and allocation concealment not clear. Small sample size |
| Bouman 2002 [ | Two Centres | Number: 106 patients (Early RRT = 70; late RRT = 36 | Early RRT = Hemofiltration started within 12 h of inclusion | Survival at day 28 after inclusion and recovery of renal function, ICU survival, hospital survival, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, and length of hospitalization. | Open label. Allocation concealment not clear. Three treatment strategies were compared viz early high volume hemofiltration, early low volume hemofiltration and late low volume hemofiltration. Small sample size. |
| Durmaz 2003 [ | Single centre (In-patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery) | Number: 44 (Early RRT = 21;Late RRT = 23 | Early RRT = Pre-operative prophylactic hemodialysis was performed if serum creatinine ≥2.5 mg/dl | Overall 30 day mortality; mean decrease in serum creatinine, potassium and BUN levels; average length of stay in cardiac ICU, average length of postoperative in-hospital stay. | Quasi randomized trial. |
| Sugahara 2004 [ | Single Centre (in-patient) | Number: 28 (Early RRT = 14; Late RRT = 14) | Early RRT = Dialys started if ourly urine output <30 ml/kg for 3 h or daily urine output ≤750 ml . | Overall 14 days mortality, changes in the blood pressure, changes in serum creatinine, changes in urine output. | Open label randomized controlled trial. Allocation concealment not clear. Small sample size. |
| Payen 2009 [ | Multicentric | Number: 76 (Early RRT = 37;Control group = 39 | Early RRT = Hemofiltration started if, clinically identified focus on infection associated with at least 2 systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria and one or more sepsis-induced organ failures within the 24 h before inclusion, plus a Simplified Acute Physiology II score between 35 and 63. | Overall 28 day mortality; occurrence or worsening of sepsis induced organ failure (SOFA score), length of ICU stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, ionotropic support,,measurement s of cytokines, adverse events. | Open label. Allocation concealment unclear. Authors concluded that in septic patients, hemofiltration with an ultrafiltration rate of 2 L/h did not limit organ failure |
| Jamale 2013 [ | Single centre | Number: 208 (Early RRT = 102;late RRT = 106) | Early RRT = initiation of dialysis therapy if serum urea nitrogen level increased to >70 mg/dL and/or creatinine level increased to >7 mg/dL irrespective of complications till recovery of renal functions. | Overall 3 months mortality, Dialysis dependence at 3 months, increase in urine output, decrease in blood urea nitrogen and creatinine, days to renal recovery, adverse events such as bleeding, number of catheter related complications including infections, number of episodes of intradialytic hypotension, requirement of blood products for transfusion, | Open label trial. Event rate (mortality) was less than predicted. Study population included community acquired AKI (different from usual AKI population). Use of intermittent dialysis (not continuous) as a modality of RRT. |
| Combes 2015 [ | Multicentric | Number = 224 (Early RRT = 112; Late RRT/standard care = 112) | Early RRT = High volume hemofiltration for 48 h followed by standard-volume continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHD) till recovery of renal function. | Overall mortality on day 30, day 60 and day 90, ICU and hospital length of stay; Day 30 duration of catecholamine infusion, RRT and mechanical ventilation; numbers of catecholamine, RRT and mechanical ventilation free days; Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score until Day 30, percentage of patients with renal recovery and adverse events. | Open label trial. Allocation concealment not done. Trail was prematurely terminated after only 2/3rd of the calculated enrollments. Only post cardiac surgery patients were enrolled. |
| Wald 2015 [ | Multicentric (Intensive care unit) | Number = 101 (Early RRT group = 48; Late RRT/control group = 52) | Early RRT = patients that fulfilled inclusion criterion were started RRT modality based on current best practice guidelines till death, recovery of renal functions or changes in goals of care. | Proportion of patients in each arm who commenced RRT within the protocol-specified window (≤12 and 4 12 h), the proportion of patients successfully consented among those fully eligible (feasibility target ≥ 50%),the proportion of patients followed to day 90 (feasibility target ≥ 95%), and serious adverse events. | Open label, parallel feasibility randomized controlled trial. Allocation concealment not clear. Small sample size |
| Gaudry 2016 [ | Multi-centric | Number: 620 (Early RRT = 312; Late RRT/control group = 308) | Early RRT = RRT started as soon as possible after randomization in order for it to be started within 6 h of documentation of stage 3 AKI. | Overall mortality on day 60, receipt of renal-replacement therapy at least once with the delayed strategy; numbers of renal-replacement therapy–free days, dialysis catheter–free days, mechanical ventilation–free days, and vasopressor therapy–free days on day 28, Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at day 3 and day 7; the vital status at day 28; the length of stay in the intensive care unit and in the hospital; the proportion of patients with treatment limitations; the occurrence of nosocomial infections; and complications potentially related to acute kidney injury or renal replacement therapy. | Open label trial. Inadequate sample size..The patients in the trial have advance acute kidney injury i.e KDIGO stage 3 reducing generalizability of the study among different staging. |
| Zarbock 2016 [ | Single centre (Intensive care unit) | Number = 2319 (Early RRT = 112; Late RRT/control group = 119) | Early RRT: Continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration was initiated within 8 h of diagnosis of stage 2 AKI using KDIGO classification. | Overall mortality on day 90, mortality on day 28 and day 60,clinical evidence of organ dysfunction determined by SOFA scores, recovery of renal functions, requirement of hemodialysis after day 28 and 60, duration of renal support, ICU and hospital length of stay and markers of inflammation. | Open label trial. Allocation concealment not clear. Limited generalizability as almost all patients recruited were surgical patients. Authors proposed that adequately powered multicenter trial is needed to confirm our results and establish the best time point for the initiation of RRT in critically ill patients with AKI. |
Fig. 2Forest plot showing overall mortality
Fig. 3Forest plot showing subgroup analysis based on modality of RRT
Fig. 4Forest plot showing subgroup based on risk of bias for allocation concealment
Fig. 5Forest plot showing adverse events
Fig. 6Funnel plot
Grade of evidence for primary outcomes
| Early RRT compared to Late RRT for aki | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outcomes | No of participants (studies) | Quality of evidence (GRADE) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects | |
| Follow up | Risk with Late RRT | Risk difference with Early RRT (95% CI) | |||
| Overall mortality | 1672 (10 studies) | ⊕⊝ ⊕ ⊝ Lowa,b due to risk of bias, inconsistency | RR 0.93 (0.75 to 1.15) | study population | |
| 414 per 1000 | 29 fewer per 1000 (from 104 fewer to 62 more) | ||||
| Day 30 mortality | 1301 (6 studies) | ⊕⊝ ⊕ ⊝ Lowa,b due to risk of bias, inconsistency | RR 0.85 (0.6 to 1.2) | study population | |
| 430 per 1000 | 65 fewer per 1000 (from 172 fewer to 86 more) | ||||
| Day 60 mortality | 1075 (3 studies) | ⊕⊝ ⊕ ⊝ Lowa,b due to risk of bias, inconsistency | RR (0.64 to 1.27) | study population | |
| 473 per 1000 | 47 fewer per 1000 (from 170 fewer to 128 more) | ||||
| Day 90 mortality | 555 (3 studies) | ⊕⊝ ⊕ ⊝ Lowa,b due to risk of bias, inconsistency | RR (0.49 to 1.64) | study population | |
| 449 per 1000 | 45 fewer per 1000 (from 229 fewer to 287 more) | ||||
| Overall ICU mortality | 430 (3 studies) | ⊕⊝ ⊕ ⊝ Lowa,b due to risk of bias, inconsistency | RR (0.75 to 1.68) | study population | |
| 350 per 1000 | 42 fewer per 1000 (from 87 fewer to 238 more) | ||||
| Overall Hospital mortality | 713 (6 studies) | ⊕⊝ ⊕ ⊝ Lowa,b due to risk of bias, inconsistency | RR (0.7 to 1.68) | study population | |
| 298 per 1000 | 24 fewer per 1000 (from 89 fewer to 203 more) | ||||
| Dialysis dependence at day 90 | 539 (3 studies) | ⊕⊝ ⊕ ⊝ Lowa,b due to risk of bias, inconsistency | RR (0.51 to 2.22) | study population | |
| 54 per 1000 | 3 more per 1000 (from 27 fewer to 66 more) | ||||
The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ration; GRADE Working Group of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
Moderate quality: Further research if likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimete
Low quality: Further research if very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimete
Very low quality: We ae very uncertain about the estimate
aHeterogeneity
bThe risk was increased or decreased