Dataset Information

Comparison of Urine Output among Patients Treated with More Intensive Versus Less Intensive RRT: Results from the Acute Renal Failure Trial Network Study.

ABSTRACT: Intensive RRT may have adverse effects that account for the absence of benefit observed in randomized trials of more intensive versus less intensive RRT. We wished to determine the association of more intensive RRT with changes in urine output as a marker of worsening residual renal function in critically ill patients with severe AKI.The Acute Renal Failure Trial Network Study (n=1124) was a multicenter trial that randomized critically ill patients requiring initiation of RRT to more intensive (hemodialysis or sustained low-efficiency dialysis six times per week or continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration at 35 ml/kg per hour) versus less intensive (hemodialysis or sustained low-efficiency dialysis three times per week or continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration at 20 ml/kg per hour) RRT. Mixed linear regression models were fit to estimate the association of RRT intensity with change in daily urine output in survivors through day 7 (n=871); Cox regression models were fit to determine the association of RRT intensity with time to ≥50% decline in urine output in all patients through day 28.Mean age of participants was 60±15 years old, 72% were men, and 30% were diabetic. In unadjusted models, among patients who survived ≥7 days, mean urine output was, on average, 31.7 ml/d higher (95% confidence interval, 8.2 to 55.2 ml/d) for the less intensive group compared with the more intensive group (P=0.01). More intensive RRT was associated with 29% greater unadjusted risk of decline in urine output of ≥50% (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 1.51).More intensive versus less intensive RRT is associated with a greater reduction in urine output during the first 7 days of therapy and a greater risk of developing a decline in urine output of ≥50% in critically ill patients with severe AKI.

SUBMITTER: Mc Causland FR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4974887 | biostudies-other | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background The relationship between intensive volume removal in acute decompensated heart failure patients with preexisting worsening renal function (WRF) and renal tubular injury, postdischarge renal function, and clinical outcomes is unknown. Methods and Results We used data from the multicenter CARRESS-HF trial (Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure) that randomized patients with acute decompensated heart failure and preexisting WRF to intensive volume removal with stepped pharmacological therapy or fixed rate ultrafiltration. Patients in the urinary renal tubular injury biomarker substudy (NAG [N-acetyl-b-D-glucosaminidase], KIM-1 [kidney injury molecule-1], and NGAL [neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin]) were evaluated (N=105). The severity of prerandomization WRF was unrelated to baseline renal tubular injury biomarkers ( r=0.14; P=0.17). During randomized intensive volume removal, creatinine further worsened in 53% of patients. Despite a small to moderate magnitude increase in creatinine in most of these patients, postrandomization WRF was strongly associated with worsening in renal tubular injury biomarkers (odds ratio, 12.6; P=0.004). This observation did not differ by mode of volume removal (stepped pharmacological therapy versus ultrafiltration, Pinteraction=0.46). Increase in renal tubular injury biomarkers was associated with a higher incidence of hemoconcentration (odds ratio, 3.1; P=0.015), and paradoxically, better recovery of creatinine at 60 days ( P=0.01). Conclusions In acute decompensated heart failure patients with preexisting WRF, intensive volume removal resulted in a further worsening of creatinine approximately half of the time, a finding associated with a rise in tubular injury biomarkers. However, decongestion and renal function recovery at 60 days were superior in patients with increased tubular injury markers. These data suggest that the benefits of decongestion may outweigh any modest or transient increases in serum creatinine or tubular injury markers that occur during intensive volume removal. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00608491.

Project description:Abstract Background Corticosteroids use in severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) improves survival; however, the optimal dose is not established. We aim to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 receiving high-dose corticosteroids (HDC) versus low-dose corticosteroids (LDC). Methods This was a quasi-experimental study conducted at a large, quaternary care center in Michigan. A corticosteroid dose change was implemented in the standardized institutional treatment protocol on November 17, 2020. All patients admitted with severe COVID-19 that received corticosteroids were included. Consecutive patients in the HDC group (September 1 to November 15, 2020) were compared to the LDC group (November 30, 2020 to January 20, 2021). High-dose corticosteroids was defined as 80 mg of methylprednisolone daily in 2 divided doses, and LDC was defined as 32–40 mg of methylprednisolone daily in 2 divided doses. The primary outcome was all-cause 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included progression to mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay (LOS), discharge on supplemental oxygen, and corticosteroid-associated adverse events. Results Four-hundred seventy patients were included: 218 (46%) and 252 (54%) in the HDC and LDC groups, respectively. No difference was observed in 28-day mortality (14.5% vs 13.5%, P = .712). This finding remained intact when controlling for additional variables (odds ratio, 0.947; confidence interval, 0.515–1.742; P = .861). Median hospital LOS was 6 and 5 days in the HDC and LDC groups, respectively (P < .001). No differences were noted in any of the other secondary outcomes. Conclusions Low-dose methylprednisolone had comparable outcomes including mortality to high-dose methylprednisolone for the treatment of severe COVID-19. Corticosteroids are well established in the treatment of severe COVID-19, but the optimal dose is unknown. We compared high- versus low-dose methylprednisolone in a quasi-experimental study and showed no outcome differences, including mortality.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Urine Output among Patients Treated with More Intensive Versus Less Intensive RRT: Results from the Acute Renal Failure Trial Network Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets