Dataset Information

Acute Kidney Injury and Renal Replacement Therapy in COVID-19 Versus Other Respiratory Viruses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT:

Background:

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a potentially fatal complication of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19). Binding of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus responsible for COVID-19, to its viral receptor, angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), results in viral entry and may cause AKI.

Objectives:

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the frequencies of AKI and renal replacement therapy (RRT) in critically ill COVID-19 patients and compared those frequencies with patients who were infected by respiratory viruses that bind or downregulate ACE2 (ACE2-associated viruses) and viruses that do not bind nor downregulate ACE2 (non-ACE2-associated viruses).

Design:

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting:

Observational studies on COVID-19 and other respiratory viral infections reporting AKI and RRT were included. The exclusion criteria were non-English articles, non-peer-reviewed articles, review articles, studies that included patients under the age of 18, studies including fewer than 10 patients, and studies not reporting AKI and RRT rates.

Patients:

Adult COVID-19, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), and influenza patients.

Measurements:

We extracted the following data from the included studies: author, year, study location, age, sex, race, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, shock, vasopressor use, mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU mortality, AKI, and RRT.

Methods:

We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE for articles reporting AKI or RRT. AKI was defined by authors of included studies. Critical illness was defined by ICU admission. We performed a random effects meta-analysis to calculate pooled estimates for the AKI and RRT rate within each virus group using a random intercept logistic regression model.

Results:

Of 23 655 hospitalized, critically ill COVID-19 patients, AKI frequencies were not significantly different between COVID-19 patients (51%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 44%-57%) and critically ill patients infected with ACE2-associated (56%, 95% CI: 37%-74%, P = .610) or non-ACE2-associated viruses (63%, 95% CI: 43%-79%, P = .255). Pooled RRT rates were also not significantly different between critically ill, hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (20%, 95% CI: 16%-24%) and ACE2-associated viruses (18%, 95% CI: 8%-33%, P = .747). RRT rates for both COVID-19 and ACE2-associated viruses were significantly different (P < .001 for both) from non-ACE2-associated viruses (49%, 95% CI: 44%-54%). After adjusting for shock or vasopressor use, AKI and RRT rates were not significantly different between groups.

Limitations:

Limitations of this study include the heterogeneity of definitions of AKI that were used across different virus studies. We could not match severity of infection or do propensity matching across studies. Most of the included studies were conducted in retrospective fashion. Last, we did not include non-English publications.

Conclusions:

Our findings suggest that viral ACE2 association does not significantly alter the rates of AKI and RRT among critically ill patients admitted to the ICU. However, the rate of RRT is lower in patients with COVID-19 or ACE2-associated viruses when compared with patients infected with non-ACE2-binding viruses, which might partly be due to the lower frequencies of shock and use of vasopressors in these two virus groups. Prospective studies are necessary to demonstrate whether modulation of the ACE2 axis with Renin-Angiotensin System inhibitors impacts the rates of AKI and whether they are beneficial or harmful in COVID-19 patients.

SUBMITTER: Cau A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8558598 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Recent data indicate AKI is very common among hospitalized Chinese patients and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is increasingly offered for treatment. However, only anecdotal information regarding CRRT's use in relation to other modalities and the specific manner in which it is prescribed exists currently. This report summarizes the results of a comprehensive physician survey designed to characterize contemporary dialytic management of AKI patients in China, especially with respect to the utilization of CRRT. The survey queried both nephrologists and critical care physicians across a wide spectrum of hospitals about factors influencing initial RRT modality selection, especially patient clinical characteristics and willingness to receive RRT, treatment location, and institutional capabilities. For patients initially treated with CRRT, data related to indication, timing of treatment initiation, dose, anticoagulation technique, and duration of therapy were also collected. Among AKI patients considered RRT candidates, the survey indicated 15.1% (95% CI, 12.3%-17.9%) did not actually receive dialysis at Chinese hospitals. The finding was largely attributed to prohibitively high therapy costs in the view of patients or their families. The survey confirmed the dichotomy in RRT delivery in China, occurring both in the nephrology department (with nephrologists responsible) and the intensive care unit (with critical care physicians responsible). For all patients who were offered and received RRT, the survey participants reported 63.9% (56.4%-71.3%) were treated initially with CRRT and 24.8% (19.2%-30.3%) with intermittent hemodialysis (HD) (P<0.001). The mean percentage of patients considered hemodynamically unstable at RRT initiation was 36.2% (31.3%-41.1%), although this figure was two-fold higher in patients treated initially with CRRT (43.1%; 35.8%-50.4%) in comparison to those initially treated with HD (22.4%; 16.4%-28.4%)(P<0.001). An overwhelming majority of intensive care patients were treated initially with CRRT (86.6%; 79.8-93.4%) while it was the initial modality in only 44.6% (33.5-55.7%) of patients treated in a nephrology department (P<0.001). Approximately 70% of respondents overall reported prescribing a CRRT dose in the range of 20-30 mL/kg/hr while approximately 20% of prescriptions fell above this range. Daily prescribed therapy duration demonstrated a marked divergence from values reported in the literature and standard clinical practice. Overall, the most common average prescribed value (50% of respondents) fell in the 10-20 hr range, with only 18% in the 20-24 hr range. Moreover, 32% of respondents reported an average prescribed value of less than 10 hrs per day. While the percentages for the 10-20 hrs range were essentially the same for nephrology and ICU programs, a daily duration of less than 10 hrs was much more common in nephrology programs (48.0%; 38.3%-57.9%) versus ICU programs (16%; 10.0%-24.6%)(P<0.001). Our analysis demonstrates both similarities and differences between RRT practices for AKI in China and those in the developed world. While some differences are driven by non-medical factors, future studies should explore these issues further as Chinese RRT practices are harmonized with those in the rest of the world.

Project description:BackgroundIntermittent hemodialysis (IHD) and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) are the two main RRT modalities in patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI). Meta-analyses conducted more than 10 years ago did not show survival difference between these two modalities. As the quality of RRT delivery has improved since then, we aimed to reassess whether the choice of IHD or CRRT as first modality affects survival of patients with severe AKI.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of two multicenter randomized controlled trials (AKIKI and IDEAL-ICU) that compared an early RRT initiation strategy with a delayed one. We included patients allocated to the early strategy in order to emulate a trial where patients would have been randomized to receive either IHD or CRRT within twelve hours after the documentation of severe AKI. We determined each patient's modality group as the first RRT modality they received. The primary outcome was 60-day overall survival. We used two propensity score methods to balance the differences in baseline characteristics between groups and the primary analysis relied on inverse probability of treatment weighting.ResultsA total of 543 patients were included. Continuous RRT was the first modality in 269 patients and IHD in 274. Patients receiving CRRT had higher cardiovascular and total-SOFA scores. Inverse probability weighting allowed to adequately balance groups on all predefined confounders. The weighted Kaplan-Meier death rate at day 60 was 54·4% in the CRRT group and 46·5% in the IHD group (weighted HR 1·26, 95% CI 1·01-1·60). In a complementary analysis of less severely ill patients (SOFA score: 3-10), receiving IHD was associated with better day 60 survival compared to CRRT (weighted HR 1.82, 95% CI 1·01-3·28; p < 0.01). We found no evidence of a survival difference between the two RRT modalities in more severe patients.ConclusionCompared to IHD, CRRT as first modality seemed to convey no benefit in terms of survival or of kidney recovery and might even have been associated with less favorable outcome in patients with lesser severity of disease. A prospective randomized non-inferiority trial should be implemented to solve the persistent conundrum of the optimal RRT technique.