À compter du 1er décembre 2023, l’accès à POEMs et à Essential Evidence Plus ne fera plus partie des avantages offerts aux membres de l’AMC.
Question clinique
What is the optimal timing for the initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI)?
L’Essentiel
An accelerated strategy of RRT initiation in critically ill patients with AKI does not decrease mortality. Further, it eads to greater dependence on RRT and more adverse events. A recent meta-analysis that did not include the current trial (daily POEM July 24, 2020) similarly found no effect on mortality with early initiation of RRT. 1b
Référence
Plan de l'etude: Randomized controlled trial (nonblinded)
Financement: Government
Cadre: Inpatient (ICU only)
Sommaire
In this multinational study, investigators randomized critically ill adult patients with severe AKI to receive accelerated initiation of RRT (n=1465) or standard initiation (n=1462). Patients with emergency indications for RRT and those with advanced chronic kidney disease were excluded, amongst others. After randomization, full eligibility was confirmed by excluding patients who were determined by their primary physicians to require emergency RRT or be likely to have imminent recovery of renal function. In the accelerated strategy group, patients started RRT within 12 hours of confirmation of full eligibility. In the standard group, RRT was only started if patients had evidence of hyperkalemia, severe metabolic acidosis, severe respiratory failure, or persistent acute kidney injury for at least 72 hours. The two groups were balanced at baseline: 44% had chronic kidney disease and 58% had sepsis. In the accelerated group, RRT was initiated at a median of 6.1 hours in 96.8% of patients, whereas in the standard group, RRT was initiated at a median of 31.1 hours in 61.8% of patients. No significant difference in deaths were detected at 90 days (about 44% in both groups). Accelerated strategy patients were more likely to be dependent on RRT at 90 days (10.4% vs. 6.0%, RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.24-2.43) and had a higher risk of re-hospitalization (20.9% vs. 17.0%, RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.02-1.49). Adverse events, most commonly hypotension and hypophosphatemia, were also more likely in the accelerated strategy group (23.0% vs. 16.5%, RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.21-1.62). Quality of life scores were similar in the two groups.
Reviewer
Nita Shrikant Kulkarni, MD
Assistant Professor in Hospital Medicine
Northwestern University
Chicago, IL