Guo-Wei Tu1, Jia-Rui Xu2, Lan Liu1, Du-Ming Zhu1, Xiao-Mei Yang1, Chun-Sheng Wang3, Guo-Guang Ma1, Zhe Luo1,4, Xiao-Qiang Ding2. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China. 2. Department of Nephrology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China. 3. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China. 4. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Xiamen Branch, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen 361015, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate whether the preemptive renal replacement therapy (RRT) might improve outcomes in post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS) patients. METHODS: In Period A (September 2014-April 2016), patients with PCCS received RRT, depending on conventional indications or bedside attendings. In Period B (May 2016-November 2017), the preemptive RRT strategy was implemented in all PCCS patients in our intensive care unit. The goal-directed RRT was applied for the RRT patients. The hospital mortality and renal recovery were compared between the two periods. RESULTS: A total of 155 patients (76 patients in Period A and 79 patients in Period B) were ultimately enrolled in this study. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics and intraoperative and postoperative parameters between the two groups. The duration between surgery and RRT initiation was significantly shorter in Period B than in Period A [23 (17, 66) vs. 47 (20, 127) h, P<0.01]. The hospital mortality in Period B was significantly lower than that in Period A (38.0% vs. 59.2%, P<0.01). There were fewer patients with no renal recovery in Period B (4.1% vs. 19.4%, P=0.026). Patients in Period B displayed a significantly shorter time to completely renal recovery (12±15 vs. 25±15 d, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Among PCCS patients, preemptive RRT compared with conventional initiation of RRT reduced mortality in hospital and also led to faster and more frequent recovery of renal function. Our preliminary study supposed that preemptive initiation of RRT might be an effective approach to PCCS with acute kidney injury (AKI). 2019 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to evaluate whether the preemptive renal replacement therapy (RRT) might improve outcomes in post-cardiotomy cardiogenic shock (PCCS) patients. METHODS: In Period A (September 2014-April 2016), patients with PCCS received RRT, depending on conventional indications or bedside attendings. In Period B (May 2016-November 2017), the preemptive RRT strategy was implemented in all PCCS patients in our intensive care unit. The goal-directed RRT was applied for the RRT patients. The hospital mortality and renal recovery were compared between the two periods. RESULTS: A total of 155 patients (76 patients in Period A and 79 patients in Period B) were ultimately enrolled in this study. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics and intraoperative and postoperative parameters between the two groups. The duration between surgery and RRT initiation was significantly shorter in Period B than in Period A [23 (17, 66) vs. 47 (20, 127) h, P<0.01]. The hospital mortality in Period B was significantly lower than that in Period A (38.0% vs. 59.2%, P<0.01). There were fewer patients with no renal recovery in Period B (4.1% vs. 19.4%, P=0.026). Patients in Period B displayed a significantly shorter time to completely renal recovery (12±15 vs. 25±15 d, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Among PCCS patients, preemptive RRT compared with conventional initiation of RRT reduced mortality in hospital and also led to faster and more frequent recovery of renal function. Our preliminary study supposed that preemptive initiation of RRT might be an effective approach to PCCS with acute kidney injury (AKI). 2019 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
Authors: David A Baran; Cindy L Grines; Steven Bailey; Daniel Burkhoff; Shelley A Hall; Timothy D Henry; Steven M Hollenberg; Navin K Kapur; William O'Neill; Joseph P Ornato; Kelly Stelling; Holger Thiele; Sean van Diepen; Srihari S Naidu Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2019-05-19 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: A Mebazaa; H Tolppanen; C Mueller; J Lassus; S DiSomma; G Baksyte; M Cecconi; D J Choi; A Cohen Solal; M Christ; J Masip; M Arrigo; S Nouira; D Ojji; F Peacock; M Richards; N Sato; K Sliwa; J Spinar; H Thiele; M B Yilmaz; J Januzzi Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Alexander Zarbock; John A Kellum; Christoph Schmidt; Hugo Van Aken; Carola Wempe; Hermann Pavenstädt; Andreea Boanta; Joachim Gerß; Melanie Meersch Journal: JAMA Date: 2016 May 24-31 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Jean-Pierre Quenot; Marine Jacquier; Auguste Dargent; Jean-Baptiste Roudaut; Pascal Andreu; François Aptel; Marie Labruyère; Saber Barbar Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2020-05