Renal outcomes according to renal replacement therapy modality and treatment protocol in the ATN and RENAL trials

Initial renal replacement therapy (RRT) modality associates with 90-day postdischarge RRT dependence in critically ill AKI survivors

PURPOSE

Real-world comparison of RRT modality on RRT dependence at 90 days postdischarge among ICU patients discharged alive after RRT for acute kidney injury (AKI).

METHODS

Using claims-linked to US hospital discharge data (Premier PINC AI Healthcare Database [PHD]), we compared continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) vs. intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) for AKI in adult ICU patients discharged alive from January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2021. RRT dependence at 90 days postdischarge was defined as ≥2 RRT treatments in the last 8 days. Between-group differences were balanced using inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW).

RESULTS

Of 34,804 patients, 3804 patients (from 382 hospitals) had claims coverage for days 83-90 postdischarge. Compared to IHD-treated patients (n = 2740), CRRT-treated patients (n = 1064) were younger; had more admission to large teaching hospitals, surgery, sepsis, shock, mechanical ventilation, but lower prevalence of comorbidities (p < 0.05 for all). Compared to IHD-treated patients, CRRT-treated patients had lower RRT dependence at hospital discharge (26.5% vs. 29.8%, p = 0.04) and lower RRT dependence at 90 days postdischarge (4.9% vs. 7.4% p = 0.006) with weighted adjusted OR (95% CI): 0.68 (0.47-0.97), p = 0.03. Results persisted in sensitivity analyses including patients who died during days 1-90 postdischarge (n = 112) or excluding patients from hospitals with IHD patients only (n = 335), or when excluding patients who switched RRT modalities (n = 451).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjusted for potential confounders, the odds of RRT dependence at 90 days postdischarge among survivors of RRT for AKI was 30% lower for those treated first with CRRT vs. IHD, overall and in several sensitivity analyses.

SUMMARY

Critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICU) may develop acute kidney injury (AKI) that requires renal replacement therapy (RRT) to temporarily replace the injured kidney function of cleaning the blood. Two main types of RRT in the ICU are called continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), which is performed almost continuously, i.e., for >18 h per day, and intermittent hemodialysis (IHD), which is a more rapid RRT that is usually completed in a little bit over 6 h, several times per week. The slower CRRT may be gentler on the kidneys and is more likely to be used in the sickest patients, who may not be able to tolerate IHD. We conducted a data-analysis study to evaluate whether long-term effects on kidney function (assessed by ongoing need for RRT, i.e., RRT dependence) differ depending on use of CRRT vs. IHD. In a very large US linked hospital-discharge/claims database we found that among ICU patients discharge alive after RRT for AKI, fewer CRRT-treated patients had RRT dependence at hospital discharge (26.5% vs. 29.8%, p = 0.04) and at 90 days after discharge (4.9% vs. 7.4% p = 0.006). In adjusted models, RRT dependence at 90 days postdischarge was >30% lower for CRRT than IHD-treated patients. These results from a non-randomized study suggest that among survivors of RRT for AKI, CRRT may result in less RRT dependence 90 days after hospital discharge.

Regional Practice Variation and Outcomes in the Standard Versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) Trial: A Post Hoc Secondary Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Among patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI) admitted to the ICU in high-income countries, regional practice variations for fluid balance (FB) management, timing, and choice of renal replacement therapy (RRT) modality may be significant.

DESIGN

Secondary post hoc analysis of the STandard vs. Accelerated initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02568722).

SETTING

One hundred-fifty-three ICUs in 13 countries.

PATIENTS

Altogether 2693 critically ill patients with AKI, of whom 994 were North American, 1143 European, and 556 from Australia and New Zealand (ANZ).

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Total mean FB to a maximum of 14 days was +7199 mL in North America, +5641 mL in Europe, and +2211 mL in ANZ (p < 0.001). The median time to RRT initiation among patients allocated to the standard strategy was longest in Europe compared with North America and ANZ (p < 0.001; p < 0.001). Continuous RRT was the initial RRT modality in 60.8% of patients in North America and 56.8% of patients in Europe, compared with 96.4% of patients in ANZ (p < 0.001). After adjustment for predefined baseline characteristics, compared with North American and European patients, those in ANZ were more likely to survive to ICU (p < 0.001) and hospital discharge (p < 0.001) and to 90 days (for ANZ vs. Europe: risk difference [RD], -11.3%; 95% CI, -17.7% to -4.8%; p < 0.001 and for ANZ vs. North America: RD, -10.3%; 95% CI, -17.5% to -3.1%; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Among STARRT-AKI trial centers, significant regional practice variation exists regarding FB, timing of initiation of RRT, and initial use of continuous RRT. After adjustment, such practice variation was associated with lower ICU and hospital stay and 90-day mortality among ANZ patients compared with other regions.

Mortality and mode of dialysis: meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

The global use of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) has increased, mirroring the incidence of acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease. Despite its growing clinical usage, patient outcomes with KRT modalities remain controversial. In this meta-analysis, we sought to compare the mortality outcomes of patients with any kidney disease requiring peritoneal dialysis (PD), hemodialysis (HD), or continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT).

METHODS

The investigation was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PubMed (MEDLINE), Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were screened for randomized trials and observational studies comparing mortality rates with different KRT modalities in patients with acute or chronic kidney failure. A random-effects model was applied to compute the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) with CRRT vs. HD, CRRT vs. PD, and HD vs. PD. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics, and sensitivity using leave-one-out analysis.

RESULTS

Fifteen eligible studies were identified, allowing comparisons of mortality risk with different dialytic modalities. The relative risk was non-significant in CRRT vs. PD [RR = 0.95, (95%CI 0.53, 1.73), p = 0.92 from 4 studies] and HD vs. CRRT [RR = 1.10, (95%CI 0.95, 1.27), p = 0.21 from five studies] comparisons. The findings remained unchanged in the leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. Although PD was associated with lower mortality risk than HD [RR = 0.78, (95%CI 0.62, 0.97), p = 0.03], the significance was lost with the exclusion of 4 out of 5 included studies.

CONCLUSION

The current evidence indicates that while patients receiving CRRT may have similar mortality risks compared to those receiving HD or PD, PD may be associated with lower mortality risk compared to HD. However, high heterogeneity among the included studies limits the generalizability of our findings. High-quality studies comparing mortality outcomes with different dialytic modalities in CKD are necessary for a more robust safety and efficacy evaluation.

Phase-3 trial of recombinant human alkaline phosphatase for patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (REVIVAL)

PURPOSE

Ilofotase alfa is a human recombinant alkaline phosphatase with reno-protective effects that showed improved survival and reduced Major Adverse Kidney Events by 90 days (MAKE90) in sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (SA-AKI) patients. REVIVAL, was a phase-3 trial conducted to confirm its efficacy and safety.

METHODS

In this international double-blinded randomized-controlled trial, SA-AKI patients were enrolled < 72 h on vasopressor and < 24 h of AKI. The primary endpoint was 28-day all-cause mortality. The main secondary endpoint was MAKE90, other secondary endpoints were (i) days alive and free of organ support through day 28, (ii) days alive and out of the intensive care unit (ICU) through day 28, and (iii) time to death through day 90. Prior to unblinding, the statistical analysis plan was amended, including an updated MAKE90 definition.

RESULTS

Six hundred fifty patients were treated and analyzed for safety; and 649 for efficacy data (ilofotase alfa n = 330; placebo n = 319). The observed mortality rates in the ilofotase alfa and placebo groups were 27.9% and 27.9% at 28 days, and 33.9% and 34.8% at 90 days. The trial was stopped for futility on the primary endpoint. The observed proportion of patients with MAKE90A and MAKE90B were 56.7% and 37.4% in the ilofotase alfa group vs. 64.6% and 42.8% in the placebo group. Median [interquartile range (IQR)] days alive and free of organ support were 17 [0-24] and 14 [0-24], number of days alive and discharged from the ICU through day 28 were 15 [0-22] and 10 [0-22] in the ilofotase alfa and placebo groups, respectively. Adverse events were reported in 67.9% and 75% patients in the ilofotase and placebo group.

CONCLUSION

Among critically ill patients with SA-AKI, ilofotase alfa did not improve day 28 survival. There may, however, be reduced MAKE90 events. No safety concerns were identified.

Initiation of continuous renal replacement therapy versus intermittent hemodialysis in critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury: a secondary analysis of STARRT-AKI trial

BACKGROUND

There is controversy regarding the optimal renal-replacement therapy (RRT) modality for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI).

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of the STandard versus Accelerated Renal Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial to compare outcomes among patients who initiated RRT with either continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) or intermittent hemodialysis (IHD). We generated a propensity score for the likelihood of receiving CRRT and used inverse probability of treatment with overlap-weighting to address baseline inter-group differences. The primary outcome was a composite of death or RRT dependence at 90-days after randomization.

RESULTS

We identified 1590 trial participants who initially received CRRT and 606 who initially received IHD. The composite outcome of death or RRT dependence at 90-days occurred in 823 (51.8%) patients who commenced CRRT and 329 (54.3%) patients who commenced IHD (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.09). After balancing baseline characteristics with overlap weighting, initial receipt of CRRT was associated with a lower risk of death or RRT dependence at 90-days compared with initial receipt of IHD (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.66-0.99). This association was predominantly driven by a lower risk of RRT dependence at 90-days (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.39-0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients with severe AKI, initiation of CRRT, as compared to IHD, was associated with a significant reduction in the composite outcome of death or RRT dependence at 90-days.

Debate: Intermittent Hemodialysis versus Continuous Kidney Replacement Therapy in the Critically Ill Patient: Moderator Commentary

ABSTRACT

The selection of modality of kidney replacement therapy has been debated for decades. Although the KDIGO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Acute Kidney Injury consider intermittent hemodialysis and continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) to be complementary therapies, with a recommendation to preferably use CKRT in hemodynamically unstable patients, there is a vocal cadre of practitioners and investigators who argue that CKRT is the only modality that should be used to support critically ill patients with acute kidney injury, relying on observational data to argue that intermittent hemodialysis is associated with impaired recovery of kidney function. In this issue of CJASN we have provided a virtual debate allowing advocates for and against the use of intermittent hemodialysis to make their best cases. In the end, their arguments converge, with a call for more data and a pragmatic, patient-focused approach to the delivery of KRT to critically ill patients with acute kidney injury.