Dataset Information

Intensity of Renal Replacement Therapy and Duration of Mechanical Ventilation: Secondary Analysis of the Acute Renal Failure Trial Network Study.

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.

SUBMITTER: Sharma S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8173776 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Mortality in acute respiratory failure remains high despite the use of lung-protective ventilation. Recent studies have shown an association between baseline ventilation parameters (driving pressure or mechanical power) and outcomes for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Strategies focused on limiting these parameters have been proposed to further improve outcomes. However, it remains unknown whether driving pressure and mechanical power should be limited over the entire duration of mechanical ventilation and in all patients with acute respiratory failure. We aimed to estimate the association between exposure to different intensities of mechanical ventilation over time and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure.MethodsIn this registry-based, prospective cohort study, we obtained data from the Toronto Intensive Care Observational Registry, which includes all patients receiving mechanical ventilation for 4 h or more in nine ICUs that are affiliated with the University of Toronto (Toronto, ON, Canada). We included all adult (≥18 years) patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation between April 11, 2014, and June 5, 2019. Patients were excluded if they received treatment with extracorporeal life support. The primary outcome was ICU mortality. Bayesian joint models were used to estimate the strength of associations, accounting for informative censoring due to death during follow-up.FindingsOf 13 939 patients recorded in the registry, 13 408 (96·2%) were eligible for descriptive analysis. The primary analysis comprised 7876 (58·7%) patients with complete baseline characteristics, and a secondary analysis included all 13 408 patients after multiple imputation in the joint model analysis. 2409 (18·0%) of 13 408 patients died in the ICU. After adjustment for baseline characteristics, including age and severity of illness, a significant increase in the hazard of death was found to be associated with each daily increment in driving pressure (hazard ratio 1·064, 95% credible interval 1·057-1·071) or mechanical power (hazard ratio 1·060, 95% credible interval 1·053-1·066). These associations persisted over the duration of mechanical ventilation.InterpretationCumulative exposure to higher intensities of mechanical ventilation was harmful, even for short durations. Limiting exposure to driving pressure or mechanical power should be evaluated in further studies as promising ventilation strategies to reduce mortality in patients with acute respiratory failure.FundingCanadian Institutes of Health Research.

Project description:PurposeExperimental animal models of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have shown that the updated airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) methodologies may significantly improve oxygenation, maximize lung recruitment, and attenuate lung injury, without circulatory depression. This led us to hypothesize that early application of APRV in patients with ARDS would allow pulmonary function to recover faster and would reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation as compared with low tidal volume lung protective ventilation (LTV).MethodsA total of 138 patients with ARDS who received mechanical ventilation for <48 h between May 2015 to October 2016 while in the critical care medicine unit (ICU) of the West China Hospital of Sichuan University were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive APRV (n = 71) or LTV (n = 67). The settings for APRV were: high airway pressure (Phigh) set at the last plateau airway pressure (Pplat), not to exceed 30 cmH2O) and low airway pressure ( Plow) set at 5 cmH2O; the release phase (Tlow) setting adjusted to terminate the peak expiratory flow rate to ≥ 50%; release frequency of 10-14 cycles/min. The settings for LTV were: target tidal volume of 6 mL/kg of predicted body weight; Pplat not exceeding 30 cmH2O; positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) guided by the PEEP-FiO2 table according to the ARDSnet protocol. The primary outcome was the number of days without mechanical ventilation from enrollment to day 28. The secondary endpoints included oxygenation, Pplat, respiratory system compliance, and patient outcomes.ResultsCompared with the LTV group, patients in the APRV group had a higher median number of ventilator-free days {19 [interquartile range (IQR) 8-22] vs. 2 (IQR 0-15); P < 0.001}. This finding was independent of the coexisting differences in chronic disease. The APRV group had a shorter stay in the ICU (P = 0.003). The ICU mortality rate was 19.7% in the APRV group versus 34.3% in the LTV group (P = 0.053) and was associated with better oxygenation and respiratory system compliance, lower Pplat, and less sedation requirement during the first week following enrollment (P < 0.05, repeated-measures analysis of variance).ConclusionsCompared with LTV, early application of APRV in patients with ARDS improved oxygenation and respiratory system compliance, decreased Pplat and reduced the duration of both mechanical ventilation and ICU stay.

Project description:IntroductionDue to hospital crowding, mechanically ventilated patients are increasingly spending hours boarding in emergency departments (ED) before intensive care unit (ICU) admission. This study aims to evaluate the association between time ventilated in the ED and in-hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS).MethodsThis was a multi-center, prospective, observational study of patients ventilated in the ED, conducted at three academic Level I Trauma Centers from July 2011 to March 2013. All consecutive adult patients on invasive mechanical ventilation were eligible for enrollment. We performed a Cox regression to assess for a mortality effect for mechanically ventilated patients with each hour of increasing LOS in the ED and multivariable regression analyses to assess for independently significant contributors to in-hospital mortality. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, with secondary outcomes of ventilator days, ICU LOS and hospital LOS. We further commented on use of lung protective ventilation and frequency of ventilator changes made in this cohort.ResultsWe enrolled 535 patients, of whom 525 met all inclusion criteria. Altered mental status without respiratory pathology was the most common reason for intubation, followed by trauma and respiratory failure. Using iterated Cox regression, a mortality effect occurred at ED time of mechanical ventilation > 7 hours, and the longer ED stay was also associated with a longer total duration of intubation. However, adjusted multivariable regression analysis demonstrated only older age and admission to the neurosciences ICU as independently associated with increased mortality. Of interest, only 23.8% of patients ventilated in the ED for over seven hours had changes made to their ventilator.ConclusionIn a prospective observational study of patients mechanically ventilated in the ED, there was a significant mortality benefit to expedited transfer of patients into an appropriate ICU setting.

Project description:BackgroundThe individual components of mechanical ventilation may have distinct effects on kidney perfusion and on the risk of developing acute kidney injury; we aimed to explore ventilatory predictors of acute kidney failure and the hemodynamic changes consequent to experimental high-power mechanical ventilation.MethodsSecondary analysis of two animal studies focused on the outcomes of different mechanical power settings, including 78 pigs mechanically ventilated with high mechanical power for 48 h. The animals were categorized in four groups in accordance with the RIFLE criteria for acute kidney injury (AKI), using the end-experimental creatinine: (1) NO AKI: no increase in creatinine; (2) RIFLE 1-Risk: increase of creatinine of > 50%; (3) RIFLE 2-Injury: two-fold increase of creatinine; (4) RIFLE 3-Failure: three-fold increase of creatinine; RESULTS: The main ventilatory parameter associated with AKI was the positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) component of mechanical power. At 30 min from the initiation of high mechanical power ventilation, the heart rate and the pulmonary artery pressure progressively increased from group NO AKI to group RIFLE 3. At 48 h, the hemodynamic variables associated with AKI were the heart rate, cardiac output, mean perfusion pressure (the difference between mean arterial and central venous pressures) and central venous pressure. Linear regression and receiving operator characteristic analyses showed that PEEP-induced changes in mean perfusion pressure (mainly due to an increase in CVP) had the strongest association with AKI.ConclusionsIn an experimental setting of ventilation with high mechanical power, higher PEEP had the strongest association with AKI. The most likely physiological determinant of AKI was an increase of pleural pressure and CVP with reduced mean perfusion pressure. These changes resulted from PEEP per se and from increase in fluid administration to compensate for hemodynamic impairment consequent to high PEEP.

Project description:ObjectiveCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients are at risk for resource-intensive outcomes including mechanical ventilation (MV), renal replacement therapy (RRT), and readmission. Accurate outcome prognostication could facilitate hospital resource allocation. We develop and validate predictive models for each outcome using retrospective electronic health record data for COVID-19 patients treated between March 2 and May 6, 2020.Materials and methodsFor each outcome, we trained 3 classes of prediction models using clinical data for a cohort of SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2)-positive patients (n = 2256). Cross-validation was used to select the best-performing models per the areas under the receiver-operating characteristic and precision-recall curves. Models were validated using a held-out cohort (n = 855). We measured each model's calibration and evaluated feature importances to interpret model output.ResultsThe predictive performance for our selected models on the held-out cohort was as follows: area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve-MV 0.743 (95% CI, 0.682-0.812), RRT 0.847 (95% CI, 0.772-0.936), readmission 0.871 (95% CI, 0.830-0.917); area under the precision-recall curve-MV 0.137 (95% CI, 0.047-0.175), RRT 0.325 (95% CI, 0.117-0.497), readmission 0.504 (95% CI, 0.388-0.604). Predictions were well calibrated, and the most important features within each model were consistent with clinical intuition.DiscussionOur models produce performant, well-calibrated, and interpretable predictions for COVID-19 patients at risk for the target outcomes. They demonstrate the potential to accurately estimate outcome prognosis in resource-constrained care sites managing COVID-19 patients.ConclusionsWe develop and validate prognostic models targeting MV, RRT, and readmission for hospitalized COVID-19 patients which produce accurate, interpretable predictions. Additional external validation studies are needed to further verify the generalizability of our results.