David M Hill1, Julie A Rizzo2,3, James K Aden4, William L Hickerson5, Kevin K Chung3. 1. Firefighters Burn Center, Regional One Health, Memphis, Tennessee, USA, dmhill@regionalonehealth.org. 2. United States Army Institute of Surgical Research, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 4. Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA. 5. Firefighters Burn Center, Regional One Health, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with high mortality in burn patients. Previously, we reported that timely initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) with an individualized preference toward continuous modes at relatively higher than recommended doses has become standard practice in critically ill burn patients with AKI and is associated with a historically low mortality. The purpose of this cohort analysis was to determine if modality choice impacted survival in burn patients. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, a subset analysis was performed on de-identified data collected during a multicenter, observational study. All patients (n = 170) were 18 years or older, admitted with severe burn injuries and started on RRT. Comparisons were made utilizing χ2 or Fisher's exact test. Kaplan-Meier plots were utilized to assess survival. Sample size determinations to aid future research were calculated utilizing χ2 test with a Yates Correction Factor. RESULTS: Demographics and revised Baux were similar between groups. When continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) was compared to all other modalities, there was no statistically significant difference in survival (56 vs. 43%, p = 0.124). However, survival was significantly improved (54 vs. 37%, p = 0.032) in the subset of patients requiring vasopressors (n = 77). There was no statistically significant survival difference in patients with inhalation injury (38 vs. 29%, p = 0.638) or acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (51 vs. 33%, p = 0.11). DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION: Survival may be improved if CVVH is chosen as the preferred modality in burn patients with shock and requiring RRT. Differences in other subsets were promising, but analysis was underpowered. Further research should determine if modality choice provides survival benefit in any other subset of burn injury. The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.
INTRODUCTION: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with high mortality in burn patients. Previously, we reported that timely initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) with an individualized preference toward continuous modes at relatively higher than recommended doses has become standard practice in critically ill burn patients with AKI and is associated with a historically low mortality. The purpose of this cohort analysis was to determine if modality choice impacted survival in burn patients. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, a subset analysis was performed on de-identified data collected during a multicenter, observational study. All patients (n = 170) were 18 years or older, admitted with severe burn injuries and started on RRT. Comparisons were made utilizing χ2 or Fisher's exact test. Kaplan-Meier plots were utilized to assess survival. Sample size determinations to aid future research were calculated utilizing χ2 test with a Yates Correction Factor. RESULTS: Demographics and revised Baux were similar between groups. When continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) was compared to all other modalities, there was no statistically significant difference in survival (56 vs. 43%, p = 0.124). However, survival was significantly improved (54 vs. 37%, p = 0.032) in the subset of patients requiring vasopressors (n = 77). There was no statistically significant survival difference in patients with inhalation injury (38 vs. 29%, p = 0.638) or acute lung injury/acute respiratory distress syndrome (51 vs. 33%, p = 0.11). DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSION: Survival may be improved if CVVH is chosen as the preferred modality in burn patients with shock and requiring RRT. Differences in other subsets were promising, but analysis was underpowered. Further research should determine if modality choice provides survival benefit in any other subset of burn injury. The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Olivier Joannes-Boyau; Patrick M Honoré; Paul Perez; Sean M Bagshaw; Hubert Grand; Jean-Luc Canivet; Antoine Dewitte; Claire Flamens; Wilfried Pujol; Anne-Sophie Grandoulier; Catherine Fleureau; Rita Jacobs; Christophe Broux; Hervé Floch; Olivier Branchard; Stephane Franck; Hadrien Rozé; Vincent Collin; Willem Boer; Joachim Calderon; Bernard Gauche; Herbert D Spapen; Gérard Janvier; Alexandre Ouattara Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Patrick M Honore; Eric Hoste; Zsolt Molnár; Rita Jacobs; Olivier Joannes-Boyau; Manu L N G Malbrain; Lui G Forni Journal: Ann Intensive Care Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 6.925
Authors: Kevin K Chung; Elsa C Coates; William L Hickerson; Angela L Arnold-Ross; Daniel M Caruso; Marlene Albrecht; Brett D Arnoldo; Christina Howard; Laura S Johnson; Melissa M McLawhorn; Bruce Friedman; Amy M Sprague; Michael J Mosier; David J Smith; Rachel A Karlnoski; James K Aden; Elizabeth A Mann-Salinas; Steven E Wolf Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Daniel J Selig; Kevin S Akers; Kevin K Chung; Kaitlin A Pruskowski; Jeffrey R Livezey; Elaine D Por Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 3.716