The timing of renal-replacement therapy in critically ill patients who have acute kidney injury but no potentially life-threatening complication directly related to renal failure is a subject of ...debate.
In this multicenter randomized trial, we assigned patients with severe acute kidney injury (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes KDIGO classification, stage 3 stages range from 1 to 3, with higher stages indicating more severe kidney injury) who required mechanical ventilation, catecholamine infusion, or both and did not have a potentially life-threatening complication directly related to renal failure to either an early or a delayed strategy of renal-replacement therapy. With the early strategy, renal-replacement therapy was started immediately after randomization. With the delayed strategy, renal-replacement therapy was initiated if at least one of the following criteria was met: severe hyperkalemia, metabolic acidosis, pulmonary edema, blood urea nitrogen level higher than 112 mg per deciliter, or oliguria for more than 72 hours after randomization. The primary outcome was overall survival at day 60.
A total of 620 patients underwent randomization. The Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality at day 60 did not differ significantly between the early and delayed strategies; 150 deaths occurred among 311 patients in the early-strategy group (48.5%; 95% confidence interval CI, 42.6 to 53.8), and 153 deaths occurred among 308 patients in the delayed-strategy group (49.7%, 95% CI, 43.8 to 55.0; P=0.79). A total of 151 patients (49%) in the delayed-strategy group did not receive renal-replacement therapy. The rate of catheter-related bloodstream infections was higher in the early-strategy group than in the delayed-strategy group (10% vs. 5%, P=0.03). Diuresis, a marker of improved kidney function, occurred earlier in the delayed-strategy group (P<0.001).
In a trial involving critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury, we found no significant difference with regard to mortality between an early and a delayed strategy for the initiation of renal-replacement therapy. A delayed strategy averted the need for renal-replacement therapy in an appreciable number of patients. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01932190.).
Kidney replacement therapy (KRT) plays a major role in the treatment of severe AKI. Intermittent hemodialysis (HD) and continuous KRT (CKRT) are the main modalities in critically ill patients with ...AKI. CKRT is the preferred modality in many countries because of its alleged superiority on both hemodynamic tolerance and on kidney function recovery. In fact, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the two modalities have not shown any actual benefit of one technique over the other on mortality, hemodynamics, or kidney function recovery. Those RCTs were conducted more than 15 years ago. Major progress was eventually made leading to much lower mortality rates in recent studies than in previous studies. In addition, those RCTs included a noticeable proportion of patients who could have recovered without ever receiving KRT, as demonstrated by several recent studies. In the absence of evidence of clinical superiority of one KRT modality, the choice must be addressed not only regarding clinical outcome but also resources and logistics. Conclusions of health technology assessments and study reports were heterogeneous and conflicting concerning cost-effectiveness of intermittent HD versus CKRT. All these considerations justify a reevaluation of the issue in new RCTs that take into account recent knowledge on KRT initiation and management. Pending results of such study, the choice should be guided mainly by organizational considerations in each unit and without condemning any modality in the absence of proof.
Background
The efficacy of high flow nasal canula oxygen therapy (HFNO) to prevent invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is not well established in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim ...of this study was to compare the risk of IMV between two strategies of oxygenation (conventional oxygenation and HFNO) in critically ill COVID 19 patients.
Methods
This was a bicenter retrospective study which took place in two intensive care units (ICU) of tertiary hospitals in the Paris region from March 11, to May 3, 2020. We enrolled consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and acute respiratory failure (ARF) who did not receive IMV at ICU admission. The primary outcome was the rate of IMV after ICU admission. Secondary outcomes were death at day 28 and day 60, length of ICU stay and ventilator-free days at day 28
.
Data from the HFNO group were compared with those from the standard oxygen therapy (SOT) group using weighted propensity score.
Results
Among 138 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 62 (45%) were treated with SOT alone, and 76 (55%) with HFNO. In HFNO group, 39/76 (51%) patients received IMV and 46/62 (74%) in SOT group (OR 0.37 95% CI, 0.18–0.76
p
= 0.007). After weighted propensity score, HFNO was still associated with a lower rate of IMV (OR 0.31 95% CI, 0.14–0.66
p
= 0.002). Length of ICU stay and mortality at day 28 and day 60 did not significantly differ between HFNO and SOT groups after weighted propensity score. Ventilator-free days at days 28 was higher in HNFO group (21 days vs 10 days,
p
= 0.005). In the HFNO group, predictive factors associated with IMV were SAPS2 score (OR 1.13 95%CI, 1.06–1.20
p
= 0.0002) and ROX index > 4.88 (OR 0.23 95%CI, 0.008–0.64
p
= 0.006).
Conclusions
High flow nasal canula oxygen for ARF due to COVID-19 is associated with a lower rate of invasive mechanical ventilation.
Acute kidney injury is common in critically ill patients, many of whom receive renal-replacement therapy. However, the most effective timing for the initiation of such therapy remains uncertain.
We ...conducted a multinational, randomized, controlled trial involving critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury. Patients were randomly assigned to receive an accelerated strategy of renal-replacement therapy (in which therapy was initiated within 12 hours after the patient had met eligibility criteria) or a standard strategy (in which renal-replacement therapy was discouraged unless conventional indications developed or acute kidney injury persisted for >72 hours). The primary outcome was death from any cause at 90 days.
Of the 3019 patients who had undergone randomization, 2927 (97.0%) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (1465 in the accelerated-strategy group and 1462 in the standard-strategy group). Of these patients, renal-replacement therapy was performed in 1418 (96.8%) in the accelerated-strategy group and in 903 (61.8%) in the standard-strategy group. At 90 days, death had occurred in 643 patients (43.9%) in the accelerated-strategy group and in 639 (43.7%) in the standard-strategy group (relative risk, 1.00; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.93 to 1.09; P = 0.92). Among survivors at 90 days, continued dependence on renal-replacement therapy was confirmed in 85 of 814 patients (10.4%) in the accelerated-strategy group and in 49 of 815 patients (6.0%) in the standard-strategy group (relative risk, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.24 to 2.43). Adverse events occurred in 346 of 1503 patients (23.0%) in the accelerated-strategy group and in 245 of 1489 patients (16.5%) in the standard-strategy group (P<0.001).
Among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury, an accelerated renal-replacement strategy was not associated with a lower risk of death at 90 days than a standard strategy. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; STARRT-AKI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02568722.).
To investigate whether intervention effect estimates for mortality differ between blinded and nonblinded randomized controlled trials conducted in critical care. We used a meta-epidemiological ...approach, comparing effect estimates between blinded and nonblinded randomized controlled trials for the same research question.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials evaluating a therapeutic intervention on mortality in critical care, published between January 2009 and March 2019 in high impact factor general medical or critical care journals and by Cochrane.
For each randomized controlled trial included in eligible meta-analyses, we evaluated whether the trial was blinded (i.e., double-blinded and/or reporting adequate methods) or not (i.e., open-label, single-blinded, or unclear). We collected risk of bias evaluated by the review authors and extracted trial results.
Within each meta-analysis, we compared intervention effect estimates between blinded and nonblinded randomized controlled trials by using a ratio of odds ratio (< 1 indicates larger estimates in nonblinded than blinded randomized controlled trials). We then combined ratio of odds ratios across meta-analyses to obtain the average relative difference between nonblinded and blinded trials. Among 467 randomized controlled trials included in 36 meta-analyses, 267 (57%) were considered blinded and 200 (43%) nonblinded. Intervention effect estimates were statistically significantly larger in nonblinded than blinded trials (combined ratio of odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99). We found no heterogeneity across meta-analyses (p = 0.72; I2 = 0%; τ2 = 0). Sensitivity analyses adjusting the main analysis on risk of bias items yielded consistent results.
Intervention effect estimates of mortality were slightly larger in nonblinded than blinded randomized controlled trials conducted in critical care, but confounding cannot be excluded. Blinding of both patients and personnel is important to consider when possible in critical care trials, even when evaluating mortality.
PDF
