Thomas S Valley1,2,3, Brahmajee K Nallamothu2,3,4, Michael Heung3,5, Theodore J Iwashyna1,2,6, Colin R Cooke1,2,3,7. 1. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 2. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 3. Michigan Center for Integrative Research in Critical Care, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 4. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 5. Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 6. VA Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, MI. 7. Center for Health Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Acute renal replacement therapy in patients with sepsis has increased dramatically with substantial costs. However, the extent of variability in use across hospitals-and whether greater use is associated with better outcomes-is unknown. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Nationwide Inpatient Sample in 2011. PATIENTS: Eighteen years old and older with sepsis and acute kidney injury admitted to hospitals sampled by the Nationwide Inpatient Sample in 2011. INTERVENTIONS: We estimated the risk- and reliability-adjusted rate of acute renal replacement therapy use for patients with sepsis and acute kidney injury at each hospital. We examined the association between hospital-specific renal replacement therapy rate and in-hospital mortality and hospital costs after adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 293,899 hospitalizations with sepsis and acute kidney injury at 440 hospitals, of which 6.4% (n = 18,885) received renal replacement therapy. After risk and reliability adjustment, the median hospital renal replacement therapy rate for patients with sepsis and acute kidney injury was 3.6% (interquartile range, 2.9-4.5%). However, hospitals in the top quintile of renal replacement therapy use had rates ranging from 4.8% to 13.4%. There was no significant association between hospital-specific renal replacement therapy rate and in-hospital mortality (odds ratio per 1% increase in renal replacement therapy rate: 1.03; 95% CI, 0.99-1.07; p = 0.10). Hospital costs were significantly higher with increasing renal replacement therapy rates (absolute cost increase per 1% increase in renal replacement therapy rate: $1,316; 95% CI, $157-$2,475; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Use of renal replacement therapy in sepsis varied widely among nationally sampled hospitals without associated differences in mortality. Improving renal replacement standards for the initiation of therapy for sepsis may reduce healthcare costs without increasing mortality.
OBJECTIVES: Acute renal replacement therapy in patients with sepsis has increased dramatically with substantial costs. However, the extent of variability in use across hospitals-and whether greater use is associated with better outcomes-is unknown. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Nationwide Inpatient Sample in 2011. PATIENTS: Eighteen years old and older with sepsis and acute kidney injury admitted to hospitals sampled by the Nationwide Inpatient Sample in 2011. INTERVENTIONS: We estimated the risk- and reliability-adjusted rate of acute renal replacement therapy use for patients with sepsis and acute kidney injury at each hospital. We examined the association between hospital-specific renal replacement therapy rate and in-hospital mortality and hospital costs after adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 293,899 hospitalizations with sepsis and acute kidney injury at 440 hospitals, of which 6.4% (n = 18,885) received renal replacement therapy. After risk and reliability adjustment, the median hospital renal replacement therapy rate for patients with sepsis and acute kidney injury was 3.6% (interquartile range, 2.9-4.5%). However, hospitals in the top quintile of renal replacement therapy use had rates ranging from 4.8% to 13.4%. There was no significant association between hospital-specific renal replacement therapy rate and in-hospital mortality (odds ratio per 1% increase in renal replacement therapy rate: 1.03; 95% CI, 0.99-1.07; p = 0.10). Hospital costs were significantly higher with increasing renal replacement therapy rates (absolute cost increase per 1% increase in renal replacement therapy rate: $1,316; 95% CI, $157-$2,475; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Use of renal replacement therapy in sepsis varied widely among nationally sampled hospitals without associated differences in mortality. Improving renal replacement standards for the initiation of therapy for sepsis may reduce healthcare costs without increasing mortality.
Authors: Thomas S Valley; Allan J Walkey; Peter K Lindenauer; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Colin R Cooke Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Hayley B Gershengorn; Hannah Wunsch; Damon C Scales; Ryan Zarychanski; Gordon Rubenfeld; Allan Garland Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Shruti Gupta; Steven G Coca; Lili Chan; Michal L Melamed; Samantha K Brenner; Salim S Hayek; Anne Sutherland; Sonika Puri; Anand Srivastava; Amanda Leonberg-Yoo; Alexandre M Shehata; Jennifer E Flythe; Arash Rashidi; Edward J Schenck; Nitender Goyal; S Susan Hedayati; Rajany Dy; Anip Bansal; Ambarish Athavale; H Bryant Nguyen; Anitha Vijayan; David M Charytan; Carl E Schulze; Min J Joo; Allon N Friedman; Jingjing Zhang; Marie Anne Sosa; Eric Judd; Juan Carlos Q Velez; Mary Mallappallil; Roberta E Redfern; Amar D Bansal; Javier A Neyra; Kathleen D Liu; Amanda D Renaghan; Marta Christov; Miklos Z Molnar; Shreyak Sharma; Omer Kamal; Jeffery Owusu Boateng; Samuel A P Short; Andrew J Admon; Meghan E Sise; Wei Wang; Chirag R Parikh; David E Leaf Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2020-10-16 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Fekade B Sime; Melissa Lassig-Smith; Therese Starr; Janine Stuart; Saurabh Pandey; Suzanne L Parker; Steven C Wallis; Jeffrey Lipman; Jason A Roberts Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2019-12-20 Impact factor: 5.191