Shilpa Sharma1, Yvelynne P Kelly2, Paul M Palevsky3, Sushrut S Waikar4. 1. Renal Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Division of Nephrology, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA; Veterans Affairs, Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA. Electronic address: shilpasharma@mail.harvard.edu. 2. Renal Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 3. Renal Section, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, and the Renal-Electrolyte Division, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA. 4. Renal Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Section of Nephrology, Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials have failed to show benefit from increasing intensity of renal replacement therapy (RRT) for acute kidney injury, but continue to be frequently used. In addition, intensive RRT is associated with an increase in adverse events potentially secondary to small solute losses, such as phosphate. We hypothesized that, compared with less-intensive RRT, intensive RRT would lead to longer duration of mechanical ventilation. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does more-intensive renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury increase time to extubation from mechanical ventilation when compared with less-intensive therapy? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The Acute Renal Failure Trial Network study was a randomized multicenter trial of more-intensive (hemodialysis or sustained low-efficiency dialysis six times per week or continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration at 35 mL/kg per hour) vs less-intensive (hemodialysis or sustained low-efficiency dialysis three times per week or continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration at 20 mL/kg per hour) RRT in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Of 1124 patients, 907 who were supported by mechanical ventilation on study initiation were included in this Cox-proportional hazards analysis. The primary outcome was the time to first successful extubation off mechanical ventilation. RESULTS: Patients who were assigned randomly to more-intensive RRT had a 33.3% lower hazard rate of successful extubation (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88; P < .001) when compared with patients who were assigned to less-intensive RRT. Patients who were assigned to more-intensive RRT had, on average, 2.07 ventilator-free days, compared with 3.08 days in those who were assigned to less-intensive RRT (P < .001) over 14 days from start of the study. INTERPRETATION:Critically ill mechanically ventilated patients who were assigned randomly to more-intensive RRT had longer duration of mechanical ventilation compared with those who were assigned to less-intensive RRT. The reasons for this, such as excessive phosphate loss from more-intensive RRT, deserve further study to optimize the safety and effectiveness of CRRT delivery. This was a post hoc analysis of the Acute Renal Failure Trial Network study; clinical trial registration of the original trial is NCT00076219. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials have failed to show benefit from increasing intensity of renal replacement therapy (RRT) for acute kidney injury, but continue to be frequently used. In addition, intensive RRT is associated with an increase in adverse events potentially secondary to small solute losses, such as phosphate. We hypothesized that, compared with less-intensive RRT, intensive RRT would lead to longer duration of mechanical ventilation. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does more-intensive renal replacement therapy in critically illpatients with acute kidney injury increase time to extubation from mechanical ventilation when compared with less-intensive therapy? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The Acute Renal Failure Trial Network study was a randomized multicenter trial of more-intensive (hemodialysis or sustained low-efficiency dialysis six times per week or continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration at 35 mL/kg per hour) vs less-intensive (hemodialysis or sustained low-efficiency dialysis three times per week or continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration at 20 mL/kg per hour) RRT in critically illpatients with acute kidney injury. Of 1124 patients, 907 who were supported by mechanical ventilation on study initiation were included in this Cox-proportional hazards analysis. The primary outcome was the time to first successful extubation off mechanical ventilation. RESULTS:Patients who were assigned randomly to more-intensive RRT had a 33.3% lower hazard rate of successful extubation (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88; P < .001) when compared with patients who were assigned to less-intensive RRT. Patients who were assigned to more-intensive RRT had, on average, 2.07 ventilator-free days, compared with 3.08 days in those who were assigned to less-intensive RRT (P < .001) over 14 days from start of the study. INTERPRETATION:Critically ill mechanically ventilated patients who were assigned randomly to more-intensive RRT had longer duration of mechanical ventilation compared with those who were assigned to less-intensive RRT. The reasons for this, such as excessive phosphate loss from more-intensive RRT, deserve further study to optimize the safety and effectiveness of CRRT delivery. This was a post hoc analysis of the Acute Renal Failure Trial Network study; clinical trial registration of the original trial is NCT00076219. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Robert L Lins; Monique M Elseviers; Patricia Van der Niepen; Eric Hoste; Manu L Malbrain; Pierre Damas; Jacques Devriendt Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2008-10-14 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: Son Ngoc Do; Chinh Quoc Luong; My Ha Nguyen; Dung Thi Pham; Nga Thi Nguyen; Dai Quang Huynh; Quoc Trong Ai Hoang; Co Xuan Dao; Thang Dinh Vu; Ha Nhat Bui; Hung Tan Nguyen; Hai Bui Hoang; Thuy Thi Phuong Le; Lien Thi Bao Nguyen; Phuoc Thien Duong; Tuan Dang Nguyen; Vuong Hung Le; Giang Thi Tra Pham; Tam Van Bui; Giang Thi Huong Bui; Jason Phua; Andrew Li; Thao Thi Ngoc Pham; Chi Van Nguyen; Anh Dat Nguyen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-14 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Son Ngoc Do; Chinh Quoc Luong; Dung Thi Pham; My Ha Nguyen; Nga Thi Nguyen; Dai Quang Huynh; Quoc Trong Ai Hoang; Co Xuan Dao; Trung Minh Le; Ha Nhat Bui; Hung Tan Nguyen; Hai Bui Hoang; Thuy Thi Phuong Le; Lien Thi Bao Nguyen; Phuoc Thien Duong; Tuan Dang Nguyen; Yen Hai Vu; Giang Thi Tra Pham; Tam Van Bui; Thao Thi Ngoc Pham; Hanh Trong Hoang; Cuong Van Bui; Nguyen Minh Nguyen; Giang Thi Huong Bui; Thang Dinh Vu; Nhan Duc Le; Trang Huyen Tran; Thang Quang Nguyen; Vuong Hung Le; Chi Van Nguyen; Bryan Francis McNally; Jason Phua; Anh Dat Nguyen Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Conor Judge; Robert Murphy; Catriona Reddin; Sarah Cormican; Andrew Smyth; Martin O'Halloran; Martin J O'Donnell Journal: Kidney Med Date: 2021-08-20
Authors: Hannah Wozniak; André Dos Santos Rocha; Tal Sarah Beckmann; Christophe Larpin; Niccolò Buetti; Hervé Quintard; Jérôme Pugin; Claudia Paula Heidegger Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 4.241