Dataset Information

Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy Does Not Improve Early Glomerular Filtration Rate in a Porcine Renal Transplantation Model.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Insufficient fluid administration intra- and postoperatively may lead to delayed renal graft function (DGF), while fluid overload increases the risk of heart failure, infection, and obstipation. Several different fluid protocols have been suggested to ensure optimal fluid state. However, there is a lack of evidence of the clinical impact of these regimens. This study aimed to determine whether individualized goal-directed fluid therapy (IGDT) positively affects the initial renal function compared to a high-volume fluid therapy (HVFT) and to examine the effects on renal endothelial glycocalyx, inflammatory and oxidative stress markers, and medullary tissue oxygenation. The hypothesis was that IGDT improves early glomerular filtration rate (GFR) in pigs subjected to renal transplantation.

Methods

This was an experimental randomized study. Using a porcine renal transplantation model, animals were randomly assigned to receive IGDT or HVFT during and until 1 hour after transplantation from brain-dead donors. The kidneys were exposed to 18 hours of cold ischemia. The recipients were observed until 10 hours after reperfusion, which included GFR measured as clearance of chrom-51-ethylendiamintetraacetat (Cr-EDTA), animal weight, and renal tissue oxygenation by fiber optic probes. The renal expression of inflammatory and oxidative stress markers as well as glomerular endothelial glycocalyx were analyzed in the graft using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique and immunofluorescence.

Results

Twenty-eight recipient pigs were included for analysis. We found no evidence that IGDT improved early GFR compared to HVFT (P = .45), while animal weight increased more in the HVFT group (a mean difference of 3.4 kg [1.96-4.90]; P < .0001). A better, however nonsignificant, preservation of glomerular glycocalyx (P = .098) and significantly lower levels of the inflammatory marker cyclooxygenase 2 (COX-2) was observed in the IGDT group when compared to HVFT. COX-2 was 1.94 (1.50-2.39; P = .012) times greater in the HVFT group when compared to the IGDT group. No differences were observed in outer medullary tissue oxygenation or oxidative stress markers.

Conclusions

IGDT did not improve early GFR; however, it may reduce tissue inflammation and could possibly lead to preservation of the glycocalyx compared to HVFT.

SUBMITTER: Eriksen JK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7012341 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Estimation of glomerular filtration rate (GFR) using estimated glomerular filtration rate creatinine (eGFRcr) is central to clinical practice but has limitations. We tested the hypothesis that serum metabolomic profiling can identify novel markers that in combination can provide more accurate GFR estimates. METHODS:We performed a cross-sectional study of 200 African American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK) and 265 Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) participants with measured GFR (mGFR). Untargeted gas chromatography/dual mass spectrometry- and liquid chromatography/dual mass spectrometry-based quantification was followed by the development of targeted assays for 15 metabolites. On the log scale, GFR was estimated from single- and multiple-metabolite panels and compared with eGFR using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology equations with creatinine and/or cystatin C using established metrics, including the proportion of errors >30% of mGFR (1-P30), before and after bias correction. RESULTS:Of untargeted metabolites in the AASK and MESA, 283 of 780 (36%) and 387 of 1447 (27%), respectively, were significantly correlated (P???0.001) with mGFR. A targeted metabolite panel eGFR developed in the AASK and validated in the MESA was more accurate (1-P30 3.7 and 1.9%, respectively) than eGFRcr [11.2 and 18.5%, respectively (P?<?0.001 for both)] and estimating GFR using cystatin C (eGFRcys) [10.6% (P?=?0.02) and 9.1% (P?<?0.05), respectively] but was not consistently better than eGFR using both creatinine and cystatin C [3.7% (P?>?0.05) and 9.1% (P?<?0.05), respectively]. A panel excluding creatinine and demographics still performed well [1-P30 6.4% (P?=?0.11) and 3.4% (P?<?0.001) in the AASK and MESA] versus eGFRcr. CONCLUSIONS:Multimetabolite panels can enable accurate GFR estimation. Metabolomic equations, preferably excluding creatinine and demographic characteristics, should be tested for robustness and generalizability as a potential confirmatory test when eGFRcr is unreliable.