renal replacement therapy | The Journal of Critical Care Medicine

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

Huiwen Chen^1,2, 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 (UF_NET) 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 UF_NET. It was found that there was a significant variation in assessment of prescribed-to-delivered dose of UF_NET, use of continuous kidney replacement therapy for UF_NET, methods used to achieve UF_NET, 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 UF_NET, 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 UF_NET among critical care practitioners in the U.S., reflecting the need to generate evidence-based practice guidelines for UF_NET.

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. Khanna^1,5

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.