Dataset Information

Ultrafiltration and cardiopulmonary bypass associated acute kidney injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cardiopulmonary bypass is known to raise the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Previous studies have identified numerous risk factors of cardiopulmonary bypass including the possible impact of perioperative ultrafiltration. However, the association between ultrafiltration (UF) and AKI remains conflicting. Thus, we conducted a meta-analysis to further examine the relationship between UF and AKI.

Hypothesis

Ultrafiltration during cardiac surgery increases the risk of developping Acute kidney Injury.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, and SCOPUS through July 2021. The RevMan (version 5.4) software was used to calculate the pooled risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences along with their associated confidence intervals (95% CI).

Results

We identified 12 studies with a total of 8005 patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of AKI between the group who underwent UF and the control group who did not (RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.64-1). Subgroup analysis on patients with previous renal insufficiency also yielded nonsignificant difference (RR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.53 -1.33, p = .47). Subgroup analysis based on volume of ultrafiltrate removed (> or <2900 ml) was not significant and did not increase the AKI risk as predicted (RR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.63 -1.07, p = .15). We also did subgroup analysis according to the type of UF and again no significant difference in AKI incidence between UF groups and controls was observed in either the conventional ultrafiltration (CUF), modified ultrafiltration (MUF), zero-balanced ultrafiltration (ZBUF), or combined MUF and CUF subgroups.

Conclusion

UF in cardiac surgery is not associated with increased AKI incidence and may be safely used even in baseline chronic injury patients.

SUBMITTER: Kandil OA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8715396 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe study objectives were to describe the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of acute kidney injury after cardiopulmonary bypass in Jamaica.MethodWe performed a review of the medical records of adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with no prior dialysis requirement undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass at the University Hospital of the West Indies, Mona, between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019. Demographic, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were abstracted. Acute kidney injury was defined using Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria. The primary outcomes were acute kidney injury incidence and all-cause 30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional analyses were used to examine the association between the acute kidney injury risk factors and the primary outcome.ResultsData for 210 patients (58% men, mean age 58.1 ± 12.9 years) were analyzed. Acute kidney injury occurred in 80 patients (38.1%), 44% with Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes I, 33% with Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes II, and 24% with Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes III. From multivariable logistic regression models, European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.39 per unit), bypass time (odds ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-2.67 per hour), perioperative red cell transfusion (odds ratio, 3.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-6.76), and postoperative neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-2.68 per 10-unit difference) were positively associated with acute kidney injury. Acute kidney injury resulted in greater median hospital stay (18 vs 11 days, P < .001) and intensive care unit stay (5 vs 3 days, P < .001), and an 8-fold increase in 30-day mortality (hazard ratio, 8.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.76-24.06, P < .001).ConclusionsAcute kidney injury after cardiopulmonary bypass surgery occurs frequently in Jamaica and results in poor short-term outcomes. Further studies coupled with quality interventions to reduce the mortality of those with acute kidney injury are needed in the Caribbean.

Project description:IntroductionConventional markers of acute kidney injury (AKI) lack diagnostic accuracy and are expressed only late after cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Recently, interest has focused on hepcidin, a regulator of iron homeostasis, as a unique renal biomarker.MethodsWe studied 100 adult patients in the control arm of a randomized, controlled trial http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/NCT00672334 who were identified as being at increased risk of AKI after cardiac surgery with CPB. AKI was defined according to the Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, End-stage renal disease classification of AKI classification stage. Samples of plasma and urine were obtained simultaneously (1) before CPB (2) six hours after the start of CPB and (3) twenty-four hours after CPB. Plasma and urine hepcidin 25-isoforms were quantified by competitive enzyme-linked immunoassay.ResultsIn AKI-free patients (N = 91), urine hepcidin concentrations had largely increased at six and twenty-four hours after CPB, and they were three to seven times higher compared to patients with subsequent AKI (N = 9) in whom postoperative urine hepcidin remained at preoperative levels (P = 0.004, P = 0.002). Furthermore, higher urine hepcidin and, even more so, urine hepcidin adjusted to urine creatinine at six hours after CPB discriminated patients who did not develop AKI (area under the curve (AUC) receiver operating characteristic curve 0.80 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.71 to 0.87] and 0.88 [95% CI 0.78 to 0.97]) or did not need renal replacement therapy initiation (AUC 0.81 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.88] 0.88 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.99]) from those who did. At six hours, urine hepcidin adjusted to urine creatinine was an independent predictor of ruling out AKI (P = 0.011). Plasma hepcidin did not predict no development of AKI. The study findings remained essentially unchanged after excluding patients with preoperative chronic kidney disease.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that urine hepcidin is an early predictive biomarker of ruling out AKI after CPB, thereby contributing to early patient risk stratification.

Project description:ObjectiveA meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the effects of miniaturized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) and conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) on morbidity and mortality rates after cardiac surgery.MethodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using Ovid, PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases. Randomized controlled trials from the year 2000 with n > 40 patients were considered. Key search terms included variations of "mini," "cardiopulmonary," "bypass," "extracorporeal," "perfusion," and "circuit." Studies were assessed for bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The primary outcomes were postoperative mortality and stroke. Secondary outcomes included arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, renal failure, blood loss, and a composite outcome comprised of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction and renal failure. Duration of intensive care unit, and hospital stay was also recorded.ResultsThe 42 studies eligible for this study included a total of 2154 patients who underwent CECC and 2196 patients who underwent MECC. There were no significant differences in any preoperative or demographic characteristics. Compared with CECC, MECC did not reduce the incidence of mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, and renal failure but did significantly decrease the composite of these outcomes (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.81; P = .0002). MECC was also associated with reductions in arrhythmia (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54-0.83; P = .0003), blood loss (mean difference [MD], -96.37 mL; 95% CI, -152.70 to -40.05 mL; P = .0008), hospital stay (MD, -0.70 days; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.20 days; P = .006), and intensive care unit stay (MD, -2.27 hours; 95% CI, -3.03 to -1.50 hours; P < .001).ConclusionsMECC demonstrates clinical benefits compared with CECC. Further studies are required to perform a cost-utility analysis and to assess the long-term outcomes of MECC. These should use standardized definitions of endpoints such as mortality and renal failure to reduce inconsistency in outcome reporting.