Tag Archives: renal replacement therapy

Kidney injury in critically ill patients with COVID-19 – From pathophysiological mechanisms to a personalized therapeutic model

Cosmin Balan1, Tudor Ciuhodaru2, Serban-Ion Bubenek-Turconi1,3

1 Prof. Dr. C. C. Iliescu Emergency Cardiovascular Diseases Institute, Bucharest, Romania
2 Prof. Dr. Nicolae Oblu Emergency Clinical Hospital, Iași, Romania
3 Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania

DOI: 10.2478/jccm-2023-0023

Acute kidney injury is a common complication of COVID-19, frequently fuelled by a complex interplay of factors. These include tubular injury and three primary drivers of cardiocirculatory instability: heart-lung interaction abnormalities, myocardial damage, and disturbances in fluid balance. Further complicating this dynamic, renal vulnerability to a “second-hit” injury, like a SARS-CoV-2 infection, is heightened by advanced age, chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes mellitus. Moreover, the influence of chronic treatment protocols, which may constrain the compensatory intrarenal hemodynamic mechanisms, warrants equal consideration. COVID-19-associated acute kidney injury not only escalates mortality rates but also significantly affects long-term kidney function recovery, particularly in severe instances. Thus, the imperative lies in developing and applying therapeutic strategies capable of warding off acute kidney injury and decelerating the transition into chronic kidney disease after an acute event. This narrative review aims to proffer a flexible diagnostic and therapeutic strategy that recognizes the multifaceted nature of COVID-19-associated acute kidney injury in critically ill patients and underlines the crucial role of a tailored, overarching hemodynamic and respiratory framework in managing this complex clinical condition.

Keywords: , , , ,
Full text: PDF

Survey of U.S. Critical Care Practitioners on Net Ultrafiltration Prescription and Practice Among Critically Ill Patients Receiving Kidney Replacement Therapy

Huiwen Chen1,2, Raghavan Murugan1

1 Center for Critical Care Nephrology, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
2 Renal and Electrolyte Division, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

DOI: 10.2478/jccm-2021-0034

Introduction: The current prescription and practice of net ultrafiltration among critically ill patients receiving kidney replacement therapy in the U.S. are unclear.
Aim of the study: To assess the attitudes of U.S. critical care practitioners on net ultrafiltration (UFNET) prescription and practice among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury treated with kidney replacement therapy.
Methods: A secondary analysis was conducted of a multinational survey of intensivists, nephrologists, advanced practice providers, and ICU and dialysis nurses practising in the U.S.
Results: Of 1,569 respondents, 465 (29.6%) practitioners were from the U.S. Mainly were nurses and advanced practice providers (58%) and intensivists (38.2%). The median duration of practice was 8.7 (IQR, 4.2-19.4) years. Practitioners reported using continuous kidney replacement therapy (as the first modality in 60% (IQR 20%-90%) for UFNET. It was found that there was a significant variation in assessment of prescribed-to-delivered dose of UFNET, use of continuous kidney replacement therapy for UFNET, methods used to achieve UFNET, and assessment of net fluid balance during continuous kidney replacement therapy. There was also variation in interventions performed for managing hemodynamic instability, perceived barriers to UFNET, belief that early and protocol-based fluid removal is beneficial, and willingness to enroll patients in a clinical trial.
Conclusions: There was considerable practice variation in UFNET among critical care practitioners in the U.S., reflecting the need to generate evidence-based practice guidelines for UFNET.

Keywords: , , ,
Full text: PDF

Renal Recovery in Critically Ill Adult Patients Treated With Veno-Venous or Veno-Arterial Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

Braghadheeswar Thyagarajan1, Mariana Murea2, Deanna N. Jones2, Amit K. Saha3, Gregory B. Russell4, Ashish K. Khanna1,5

1 Department of Anesthesiology, Section on Critical Care Medicine, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
2 Department of Internal Medicine, Section on Nephrology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
3 Department of Anesthesiology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
4 Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
5 Outcomes Research Consortium, Cleveland, OH, USA

DOI: 10.2478/jccm-2021-0006

Introduction: Patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (ECMO) therapy are critically ill and often develop acute kidney injury (AKI) during hospitalisation. Little is known about the association of exposure to and the effect of the type of ECMO and extent of renal recovery after AKI development. Aim of the study: In patients who developed AKI, renal recovery was characterised as complete, partial or dialysis-dependent at the time of hospital discharge in both the Veno-Arterial (VA) and Veno-Venous (VV) ECMO treatment groups.
Material and methods: The study consisted of a single-centre retrospective cohort that includes all adult patients (n=125) who received ECMO treatment at a tertiary academic medical centre between 2015 to 2019. Data on demographics, type of ECMO circuit, comorbidities, exposure to nephrotoxic factors and receipt of renal replacement therapy (RRT) were collected as a part of the analysis. Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) criteria were used for the diagnosis and classification of AKI. Group differences were assessed using Fisher’s exact tests for categorical data and independent t-tests for continuous outcomes.
Results: Sixty-four patients received VA ECMO, and 58 received VV ECMO. AKI developed in 58(91%) in the VA ECMO group and 51 (88%) in the VV ECMO group (p=0.77). RRT was prescribed in significantly higher numbers in the VV group 38 (75%) compared to the VA group 27 (47%) (p=0.0035). At the time of discharge, AKI recovery rate in the VA group consisted of 15 (26%) complete recovery and 5 (9%) partial recovery; 1 (2%) remained dialysis-dependent. In the VV group, 22 (43%) had complete recovery (p=0.07), 3(6%) had partial recovery (p=0.72), and 1 (2%) was dialysis-dependent (p>0.99). In-hospital mortality was 64% in the VA group and 49% in the VV group (p=0.13).
Conclusions: Renal outcomes in critically ill patients who develop AKI are not associated with the type of ECMO used. This serves as preliminary data for future studies in the area.

Keywords: , , , ,
Full text: PDF