Dataset Information

Nephrologist Follow-Up versus Usual Care after an Acute Kidney Injury Hospitalization (FUSION): A Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Survivors of AKI are at higher risk of CKD and death, but few patients see a nephrologist after hospital discharge. Our objectives during this 2-year vanguard phase trial were to determine the feasibility of randomizing survivors of AKI to early follow-up with a nephrologist or usual care, and to collect data on care processes and outcomes.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements

We performed a randomized controlled trial in patients hospitalized with Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) stage 2-3 AKI at four hospitals in Toronto, Canada. We randomized patients to early nephrologist follow-up (standardized basket of care that emphasized BP control, cardiovascular risk reduction, and medication safety) or usual care from July 2015 to June 2017. Feasibility outcomes included the proportion of eligible patients enrolled, seen by a nephrologist, and followed to 1 year. The primary clinical outcome was a major adverse kidney event at 1 year, defined as death, maintenance dialysis, or incident/progressive CKD.

Results

We screened 3687 participants from July 2015 to June 2017, of whom 269 were eligible. We randomized 71 (26%) patients (34 to nephrology follow-up and 37 to usual care). The primary reason stated for declining enrollment included hospitalization-related fatigue (n=65), reluctance to add more doctors to the health care team (n=59), and long travel times (n=40). Nephrologist visits occurred in 24 of 34 (71%) intervention participants, compared with three of 37 (8%) participants randomized to usual care. The primary clinical outcome occurred in 15 of 34 (44%) patients in the nephrologist follow-up arm, and 16 of 37 (43%) patients in the usual care arm (relative risk, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 1.73).

Conclusions

Major adverse kidney events are common in AKI survivors, but we found the in-person model of follow-up posed a variety of barriers that was not acceptable to many patients.

Clinical trial registry name and registration number

Nephrologist Follow-up versus Usual Care after an Acute Kidney Injury Hospitalization (FUSION), NCT02483039 CJASN 16: 1005-1014, 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.17331120.

SUBMITTER: Silver SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8425610 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication among hospitalized patients with long-term implications including chronic kidney disease (CKD). Although models are available to predict the risk of advanced CKD after AKI, there is limited evidence regarding follow-up for patients with AKI after hospital discharge, resulting in variable follow-up care. A risk-stratified follow-up approach may improve appropriateness and efficiency of management for CKD among patients at risk of declining kidney function following AKI.ObjectiveThe objective was to compare and evaluate the use of a risk-stratified approach to follow-up care vs usual care for patients with AKI after hospital discharge.DesignThis study was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.SettingThis study was conducted in 2 large urban hospitals in Alberta, Canada.PatientsHospitalized patients with AKI (KDIGO stage 2 or 3) not previously under the care of a nephrologist, expected to survive greater than 90 days being discharged home.MeasurementsWe will evaluate whether guideline-recommended CKD care processes are initiated within 90 days, including statin use, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) use in those with proteinuria or diabetes, and nephrologist follow-up if sustained eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m2. We will also assess the feasibility of recruitment and the proportion of patients completing the recommended blood and urine tests at 90 days.MethodsPatients with AKI will be enrolled and randomized near the time of hospital discharge. In the intervention group, low risk patients will receive information regarding AKI, medium risk patients will additionally receive follow-up guidance sent to their primary care physician, and high-risk patients will additionally receive follow-up with a nephrologist. Participants in the intervention and usual care group will receive a requisition for urine testing and bloodwork at 90 days following hospital discharge. Telephone follow-up will be conducted for all study participants at 90 days and 1 year after hospital discharge. Bivariate tests of association will be conducted to evaluate group differences at the follow-up time points.LimitationsWe expect there may be challenges with recruitment due to the significant co-existence of comorbidity in this population.ConclusionsIf the trial shows a positive effect on these processes for kidney care, it will inform larger-scale trial to determine whether this intervention reduces the incidence of long-term clinical adverse events, including CKD progression, cardiovascular events, and mortality following hospitalization with AKI.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveTo evaluate follow-up care of critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI).Study designRetrospective cohort study.Setting & participantsPatients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with AKI in Alberta, Canada from 2005 to 2018, who survived to discharge without kidney replacement therapy or estimated glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/1.73 m2.ExposureAKI (defined as ≥50% or ≥0.3 mg/dL serum creatinine increase).OutcomesThe primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of an outpatient serum creatinine and urine protein measurement at 3 months postdischarge. Secondary outcomes included an outpatient serum creatinine or urine protein measurement or a nephrologist visit at 3 months postdischarge.Analytical approachPatients were followed from hospital discharge until the first of each outcome of interest, death, emigration from the province, kidney replacement therapy (maintenance dialysis or kidney transplantation), or end of study period (March 2019). We used non-parametric methods (Aalen-Johansen) to estimate the cumulative incidence functions of outcomes accounting for competing events (death and kidney replacement therapy).ResultsThere were 29,732 critically ill adult patients with AKI. The median age was 68 years (IQR, 57-77), 39% were female, and the median baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate was 72 mL/min/1.73 m2 (IQR, 53-90). The cumulative incidence of having an outpatient creatinine and urine protein measurement at 3 months postdischarge was 25% (95% CI, 25-26). At 3 months postdischarge, 64% (95% CI, 64-65) had an outpatient creatinine measurement, 28% (95% CI, 27-28) had a urine protein measurement, and 5% (95% CI, 4-5) had a nephrologist visit.LimitationsWe lacked granular data, such as urine output.ConclusionsMany critically ill patients with AKI do not receive the recommended follow-up care. Our findings highlight a gap in the transition of care for survivors of critical illness and AKI.

Project description:Leading organisations recommend follow-up of acute kidney injury (AKI) survivors, as these patients are at risk of long-term complications and increased mortality. Information transfer between specialties and from tertiary to primary care is essential to ensure timely and appropriate follow-up. Our aim was to examine the association between completeness of discharge documentation and subsequent follow-up of AKI survivors who received kidney replacement therapy (KRT) in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). We retrospectively analysed the data of 433 patients who had KRT for AKI during ICU admission in a tertiary care centre in the UK between June 2017 and May 2018 and identified patients who were discharged from hospital alive. Patients with pre-existing end-stage kidney disease and patients who were transferred from hospitals outside the catchment area were excluded. The primary objective was to assess the completeness of discharge documentation from critical care and hospital; secondary objectives were to determine cardiovascular medications reconciliation after AKI, and to investigate kidney care and outcomes at 1 year. The development of AKI and the need for KRT were mentioned in 85 and 82% of critical care discharge letters, respectively. Monitoring of kidney function post-discharge was recommended in 51.6% of critical care and 36.3% of hospital discharge summaries. Among 35 patients who were prescribed renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors before hospitalisation, 15 (42.9%) were not re-started before discharge from hospital. At 3 months, creatinine and urine protein were measured in 88.2 and 11.8% of survivors, respectively. The prevalence of chronic kidney disease stage III or worse increased from 27.2% pre-hospitalisation to 54.9% at 1 year (p < 0.001). Our data demonstrate that discharge summaries of patients with AKI who received KRT lacked essential information. Furthermore, even in patients with appropriate documentation, renal follow-up was poor suggesting the need for more education and streamlined care pathways.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a serious complication in critically ill patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). We hypothesized that ICU survivors with AKI would have a worse health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcome than ICU survivors without AKI. METHODS: We performed a long-term prospective observational study. Patients admitted for > 48 hours in a medical-surgical ICU were included and divided in two groups: patients who fulfilled RIFLE criteria for AKI and patients without AKI. We used the Short-Form 36 to evaluate HRQOL before admission (by proxy within 48 hours after admission of the patient), at ICU discharge, hospital discharge, 3 and 6 months following ICU discharge (all by patients). Recovery in HRQOL from ICU-admission onwards was assessed using linear mixed modelling. RESULTS: Between September 2000 and January 2007 all admissions were screened for study participation. We included a total of 749 patients. At six months after ICU discharge 73 patients with AKI and 325 patients without AKI could be evaluated. In survivors with and without AKI, the pre-admission HRQOL (by proxy) and at six months after ICU discharge was significantly lower compared with an age matched general population. Most SF-36 dimensions changed significantly over time from ICU discharge. Change over time of HRQOL between the different AKI Rifle classes (Risk, Injury, Failure) showed no significant differences. At ICU discharge, scores were lowest in the group with AKI compared with the group without AKI for the physical functioning, role-physical and general health dimensions. However, there were almost no differences in HRQOL between both groups at six months. CONCLUSIONS: The pre-admission HRQOL (by proxy) of AKI survivors was significantly lower in two dimensions compared with the age matched general population. Six months after ICU discharge survivors with and without AKI showed an almost similar HRQOL. However, compared with the general population with a similar age, HRQOL was poorer in both groups.