Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

New, goal-directed approach to renal replacement therapy improves acute kidney injury treatment after cardiac surgery

  • Jiarui Xu1, 2,
  • Xiaoqiang Ding1, 2,
  • Yi Fang1, 2,
  • Bo Shen1, 2,
  • Zhonghua Liu1, 2,
  • Jianzhou Zou1, 2,
  • Lan Liu3,
  • Chunsheng Wang3 and
  • Jie Teng1, 2Email author
Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery20149:103

https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-8090-9-103

Received: 13 December 2013

Accepted: 13 June 2014

Published: 18 June 2014

Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies of goal-directed renal replacement therapy (GDRRT) and daily hemofiltration (DHF) for treating acute kidney injury (AKI) patients after cardiac surgery.

Methods

In our retrospective study, we included 140 cardiac surgery AKI patients who were treated with renal replacement therapy (RRT) from 2002 to 2010. Two patient groups, which comprised 70 patients who received DHF from January 2002 to September 2008 and 70 patients treated with GDRRT from October 2009 to September 2010 were pair-wise compared regarding clinical outcomes, as well as the incidence of adverse events.

Results

In-hospital and 30-day mortality rates were 45.7% and 41.4% in the GDRRT and 48.6% and 54.3% in the DHF group, respectively, but without statistically significant differences. GDRRT patients needed statistically significantly shorter hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stays, less frequent RRT, and shorter RRT sessions, whereas, of 11 analyzed renal outcome parameters, 6 values, including percentage of complete renal recovery and time for complete renal recovery, were significantly superior in the GDRRT group at the time of discharge. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events within the initial 72 treatment hours between the 2 groups. Hospitalization expenses were less in GDRRT group than in DHF group.

Conclusion

The GDRRT approach is superior to DHF for improving renal outcome, as well as reducing the time and cost of RRT therapy, for cardiac surgery AKI patients.

Keywords

Cardiac surgery Acute kidney injury Goal-directed renal replacement therapy Daily hemofiltration

Background

Cardiac surgery is a major cause of AKI in critically ill patients [1, 2], and mortality among cardiopulmonary bypass patients who need RRT after cardiac surgery is reported to be 60-70% [3]. Although RRT is important in saving critically injured AKI patients, there is no consensus regarding the optimal dose or form. There is insufficient evidence to show that continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is better than intermittent renal replacement therapy (IRRT) [4, 5], and the efficacy of hybrid patterns, such as sustained low-efficiency dialysis (SLED), has not yet been evaluated [6]. It is also unclear what the optimal dose is, although it is argued that, for critically injured AKI patients, the dose should be at least 35 ml/kg/h of hemofiltration (HF) and an spKt/V value of 1.4 for hemodialysis (HD) [7]. However, recent results from the Acute Renal Failure Trial Network (ATN) study and the RENAL or IVOIRE trials did not suggest the superiority of high-dose intensive RRT [8, 9]. Another issue is the optimal intervention time, and most clinicians believe that early RRT can improve outcomes, but there is no uniform standard as to when RRT should be initiated [1012]. The idea of a goal-directed therapy (GDT) for critically ill patients was first raised in 1973 by Shoemaker [13], and hemodynamic GDT after surgery has been acknowledged as an effective measure against postoperative hospital-acquired infections [14]. In addition, various GDTs have been developed to achieve hemodynamic stability during and after cardiac [15, 16] and non-cardiac surgery [17], and Goldstein et al. have proposed an early goal-directed fluid therapy (EGDT) for fluid management of critically ill AKI patients [18]. The concept of a GDRRT was first proposed by Mehta et al. [19], but up to now, no detailed studies have been published about GDRRT. We have been using GDRRT since 2008, in which RRT goals were set up first, followed by determinations of ultrafiltration rates, dialysate compositions, and goal-directed anticoagulant therapies. GDRRT is supposed to be beneficial not only by providing extra treatments when they are specifically indicated, but also by allowing the earlier and guided use of fluids and preventing the delivery of unnecessary treatments or fluid removal when specific objectives have already been achieved. In this retrospective analysis, we compared the treatment outcomes of GDRRT and DHF in patients with AKI after cardiac surgery.

Methods

Patients

This retrospective, observational study was performed in a cohort of 140 adult patients who underwent cardiac surgery in our hospital from January 2002 to September 2010. The study included adult patients with AKI who required RRT after open heart surgery and survived longer than 72 h after surgery. Patients were excluded if they were under the age of 18, received cardiac transplantation surgery, had end-stage renal disease (ESRD) before surgery, or received preoperative RRT due to any reasons. The DHF group included 70 patients who received DHF between January 2002 and September 2008, and the GDRRT group was comprised of 70 patients who were treated with GDRRT between October 2009 and September 2010. We used pair-wise comparisons between the 2 groups regarding clinical outcomes, as well as the incidence of adverse events. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Shanghai Zhongshan Hospital, which waived the requirement for informed consent for the retrospective review of RRT interventions after cardiac surgery. In our hospital, we practiced only DHF as a therapeutic strategy for treating AKI following cardiac surgery until 2008, and GDRRT was first introduced in October 2008. We used paired analysis in order to reduce the bias created by the different time periods. We collected data for a paired analysis from 70 patients who received DHF between January 2002 and September 2008, and from 70 patients who received GDRRT between October 2009 and September 2010. The main criteria for the paired analysis were equal type of surgery and severity of illness, according to acute physiology and chronic health evaluations (APACHE) II [20] and sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores [21].

Data collection

In addition to hemodynamic and laboratory data, baseline vital signs were also recorded in the first day of ICU admission and then daily after nephrology consultation. In addition, APACHE, II as well as SOFA scores and EuroScore values [22], were computed within the first 24 h after admission to the ICU, in order to assess the severity of the illness. AKI was defined as elevation of serum creatinine (SCr) ≥ 26.4 μmol/L or 50% higher than the baseline within 48 h, or urine output < 0.5 ml/kg/h for more than 6 h, and staged according to the AKI Network classification [23]. Sepsis was defined according to the American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine (ACCP/SCCM) Consensus Conference Committee [24]. Recovery of kidney function was considered to be complete if the SCr was less than 44 μmol/L above the baseline value or to be partial if the SCr remained higher than 44 μmol/L above the baseline value but the patient was not dialysis-dependent [9]. In-hospital mortality rates inside and outside the ICU within 30 days were the primary end-points of the trial. Secondary end-points were ICU and hospital days, mechanical ventilation days, hospitalization expenses, hemodynamic stability, control of azotemia and volume overload, as well as renal function recovery.

RRT methods

DHF

The form, frequency, and time of each session, as well as the dose/ultrafiltration rate of DHF were fixed, assuming that patients were in a stable state at the time of DHF initiation and that their status did not change substantially. The indications for RRT initiation were as follows: (1) Serum K+ ≥ 6.0 mmol/L and/or electrocardiogram abnormalities; (2) Arterial blood pH ≤ 7.15; (3) Urine output < 200 mL/12 h when the first dose of furosemide was up to 80 mg or the highest dose was up to 240 mg, or anuria; (4) Rapidly rising blood urea nitrogen (BUN) or SCr; (5) Refractory fluid overload with pulmonary edema; (6) Severe sepsis with septic shock. HF was performed with Baxter BM25 or Aquarius CRRT equipment using FILTRAL 20 (AN 69, 2.05 m2 surface, GAMBRO, Sweden). We used our hospital formula as a replacement fluid, and the ratio of pre- and post-dilution was two-thirds, with an ultrafiltration rate of 60-70 ml/kg/h. Vascular access was obtained with a dual-lumen HD catheter inserted into the internal jugular or femoral vein by the standard Seldinger technique. Either a loading dose of 1500 IU heparin followed by an individual patient-adjusted anticoagulation regimen or no anticoagulation was used.

GDRRT

GDRRT cannot be defined as a fixed RRT strategy, and it is basically composed of HD, HF, and hemodiafiltration (HDF). All of these techniques were used, in order to achieve specific goals, and various parameters were monitored. The indications for RRT initiation were the same as for DHF. The patients received a central venous catheter capable of measuring central venous pressure (CVP), and oxygen saturation data were fed into a computerized ECG monitor, which also monitored heart and breathing rates, as well as blood pressure. Fluid intake and output was recorded every day, and urine output was recorded every 6 h. Potential of hydrogen and arterial oxygen saturation were monitored by blood gas analysis at least every 4 h. Blood biochemistry and other laboratory data were tested at least once every day. The usual HD or HF lasted about 4 h per session and were performed every day or every other day, but for all patients, the form, frequency, and time of each session and the dose/ultrafiltration rate were not standardized. The procedures were all performed with Baxter Aquarius equipment, using highly permeable membranes made of polyether sulfone (1.7 m2 or 1.4 m2 surface area, GAMBRO, Sweden) starting the first session with a small surface area filter and increasing the filter size in further sessions. The vascular access and replacement fluid were the same as for DHF, and the usual HF ultrafiltration rate was 25-35 ml/kg/h. The usual blood flow ranged from 100 to 250 ml/min and the dialysate flow was 8-10 L/h for HD. In all GDRRT modalities, anticoagulation was performed with unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), or no anticoagulation, according to the consulting nephrologists’ decisions.

GDRRT algorithm

The goals of GDRRT are listed in Table 1, and they included immediate and ongoing goals. The immediate goals were correcting electrolyte disturbance and acidemia by providing bicarbonate or reducing hyperkalemia, controlling volume by removing fluid overload, and improving hemodynamic stability. Ongoing goals included maintenance of fluid balance, promoting renal recovery, weaning from vasopressors, maintenance of acid-base and electrolyte balances, and support of organ functions.
Table 1

The goals of GDRRT

Solute

BUN ≤ 30 mmol/L

Volume

Urine output ≥ 0.5 ml/kg/h, 24 h fluid output ≥ 24 h fluid intake in volume overload patients, controlled acute pulmonary edema, reduction of peripheral edema, hematocrit ≥ 30%

Electrolyte and pH

Electrolyte and acid-base parameters normal or near normal: 3.5 < potassium ≤ 5.5 mmol, 7.25 ≤ pH < 7.45

Hemodynamics

MAP ≥ 65 mmHg without vasoactive drugs, CVP ≥ 8–12 mmHg, SaO2 ≥ 93%

BUN = blood urea nitrogen, MAP = mean arterial pressure, CVP = central venous pressure, SaO2 = saturation level of oxygen in hemoglobin.

The treatment protocol was as follows (see Figure 1). The GDRRT strategy was decided before treatment, based on the severity of the illness. Hemodynamically stable patients in hypercatabolic state or with severe internal environment disturbance (defined as having a SOFA cardiovascular score of 0 to 2) received HD or HDF, while patients without hypercatabolic state or severe internal environment disturbance or who were hemodynamically unstable (defined as having a SOFA cardiovascular score of 3 to 4) received HF. GDRRT was performed every day to achieve the goals listed in Table 1, and the frequency and duration of RRT sessions were determined depending on whether these goals were achieved. If the goals were not achieved (e.g., no solute control, severe electrolyte disturbance, refractory fluid overload, severe unstable hemodynamics), or in case of severe sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), or multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), the dose was increased and the usual HD and HF session times of about 4 h were extended to 8–10 h per session, or even 24 h if necessary. If the goals were achieved in the following days, the dose and frequency were reduced, and the time of each session was shortened. When patients receiving HD turned hemodynamically unstable (i.e., when the mean arterial pressure (MAP) was ≤ 65 mmHg, or the average cumulative daily variability of MAP was ≥ 30 mmHg) they were transitioned to HF, or continuous treatment was administered and vasopressors or vasodilators were given to maintain the MAP. The crossover from one to the other RRT modality was decided by nephrologists. The initial form of GDRRT included 57 usual HD and 13 HF sessions, and the main reason for conversion from HD to HF was hemodynamic instability. During the course of treatment, 10 patients received continued HD/HF because of sepsis or MODS, and only one patient received continued HDF for severe sepsis. The ultimate form of GDRRT was usual HD 53 times and HF 17 times.
Figure 1

Scheme of the GDRRT algorithm.

Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS software, version 16.0. Measurement data were expressed as means ± SD or median and quartile [ M (QR)]. Paired t-test was used for comparing baseline characteristics of the 2 groups, and independent t-test was used for comparing outcomes, while chi-squared test was used to analyze categorical data. Logistic regression analysis was used to correct for confounding factors. P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

Of the 140 patients, 70 underwent GDRRT, while the other 70 underwent DHF, and treatments in the 2 groups included 21 valve surgeries, 13 coronary artery bypass grafts (CABG), 19 thoracic aortic surgeries, 7 congenital heart surgeries, and 10 combined surgeries. The body mass index (BMI) in the GDRRT group was significantly lower than in the DHF group (22.0 ± 3.6 vs. 23.8 ± 4.6, P = 0.025). Other baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were not significantly different (Table 2).
Table 2

Baseline characteristics in the GDRRT and DHF groups

 

GDRRT (n =70)

DHF (n = 70)

P value

Male (n/%)

70 (64%)

70 (71%)

0.366

Age (y)

54 ± 15

55 ± 15

0.788

BMI (kg/m2)

22.0 ± 3.6

23.8 ± 4.6

0.025

DM (%)

16%

7%

0.118

HT (%)

33%

44%

0.165

NYHA III

44%

54%

0.119

    IV

17%

28%

0.061

CPB duration (min)

116 ± 59

134 ± 52

0.065

Aortic clamping duration (min)

58 ± 38

57 ± 32

0.919

EuroSCORE

   

    Low risk (<3)

12 (17.1%)

11 (15.7%)

0.820

    Medium risk (3 - 6)

28 (40%)

25 (35.7%)

0.601

High risk (>6)

30 (42.9%)

34 (48.6%)

0.497

Pre-op BUN (mmol/L)

9.4 ± 5.0

8.9 ± 6.7

0.632

Pre-op SCr (μmol/L)

112.1 ± 74.8

119.2 ± 101.7

0.639

Renal function before RRT

   

    BUN (mmol/L)

24.8 ± 15.2

27.3 ± 16.2

0.378

    SCr (μmol/L)

334.5 ± 148.9

365.0 ± 156.3

0.250

    K+ (mmol/L)

4.6 ± 1.2

4.5 ± 1.3

0.637

    Oliguria (%)

48%

44%

0.683

AKIN before RRT (%)

   

    AKIN1

19%

12%

0.160

    AKIN2

31%

25%

0.840

    AKIN3

50%

63%

0.211

Time from ICU admission

   

    to RRT (d)

2 (1, 5)

2.5 (2, 5)

0.245

    Sepsis (%)

18%

23%

0.381

Post-op APACHE II (24 h)

21.9 ± 5.4

22.8 ± 4.0

0.266

Post-op SOFA (24 h)

   

    Cardiovascular

2.8 ± 1.1

2.6 ± 1.0

0.262

    Respiratory

2.4 ± 1.0

2.1 ± 1.5

0.164

    Renal

1.8 ± 0.9

1.7 ± 1.2

0.587

    Entire SOFA Score

10.8 ± 2.5

11.4 ± 2.8

0.183

NYHA: New York Heart Association; Pre-op BUN: preoperative blood urea nitrogen; Pre-op Scr: preoperative serum creatinine; Post-op APACHE II (24 h): postoperative acute physiology and chronic health evaluation within the first 24 h after surgery; Post-op SOFA (24 h): postoperative sepsis-related organ failure assessment within the first 24 h after surgery.

Clinical outcomes

After being adjusted by logistic regression, the in-hospital mortality in the GDRRT and DHF groups were 45.7% and 48.6%, respectively (P = 0.734). The 30-day mortality was 41.4% and 54.3% in the GDRRT and the DHF groups, respectively. The median hours of ICU stay and mechanical ventilation days in the GDRRT group were significantly less than those in the DHF group (238.9 [119.9-483.8] vs. 360.0 [178.8-552.9] hours, P = 0.026) and 6 [3-15] vs. 9 [6-19] days, respectively, P = 0.046). There was no significant difference in median length of hospital stay between the 2 groups (25 [14-32] vs. 23 [13-36] days, P = 0.998). The frequency of RRT and the mean duration of RRT sessions were longer in the DHF group (2 [1-6] vs. 4 [2-9], P = 0.018 and 5 ± 1 vs. 6 ± 2 hours, P < 0.01). Hospitalization expenses were much higher in the DHF than in GDRRT group (2307.7 ± 430.8 vs. 1515.4 ± 461.5 dollars, P < 0.01) (Table 3).
Table 3

Clinical outcomes of AKI patients in the GDRRT and DHF groups

 

GDRRT (n = 70)

DHF (n = 70)

P value

Hospital mortality (%)

45.7%

48.6%

0.734

30-d mortality (%)

41.4%

54.3%

0.128

Hospital stay (d)

25 (14, 32)

23 (13, 36)

0.998

ICU stay (h)

238.9 (119.9 - 483.8)

360.0 (178.8 - 552.9)

0.026

Mechanical ventilation days

6 (3 - 15)

9 ( 6 - 19)

0.046

Hospitalization expense (US$)

1515.4 ± 461.5

2307.7 ± 430.8

< 0.01

RRT frequency

2 (1 - 6)

4 (2- 9)

0.018

Duration of the RRT sessions

   

    First (h)

4 ± 1

5 ± 1

< 0.01

    Average (h)

5 ± 1

6 ± 2

< 0.01

Renal outcomes

The complete renal recovery rate was significantly higher in the GDRRT than in DHF group (37% vs. 19%, P = 0.016). The time for complete renal recovery was shorter in the GDRRT group (13 ± 9 vs. 22 ± 14 days, P = 0.042), whereas there were no significant differences in partial renal recovery rates in the 2 groups (9% vs. 15%, P = 0.409). Both maximum SCr and SCr at hospital discharge were higher in the DHF than in the GDRRT group (561.0 ± 239.2 vs. 441.7 ± 189.9 μmol/L, P < 0.001, and 377.2 ± 265.8 vs. 275.5 ± 164.3 μmol/L, P = 0.007). There were no significant differences in maximum BUN and BUN at hospital discharge between the 2 groups (45.5 ± 26.1 vs. 52.2 ± 23.5 mmol/L, P = 0.226; 34.2 ± 20.9 vs. 29.6 ± 17.7 mmol/L, P = 0.356). Urinary volume after 72 h treatment was much greater in the GDRRT than in DHF group (1590 [450-3285] vs. 370 [84, 1365] ml, P = 0.002, and the time to oliguria resolution was shorter in the GDRRT group (2.5 [1.0, 3.8] vs. 5 [2.5, 8.5] days, P = 0.033) (Table 4).
Table 4

Renal outcomes of AKI patients in the GDRRT and DHF groups

 

GDRRT (n = 70)

DHF (n = 70)

P value

Max BUN (mmol/L)

52.2 ± 23.5

45.5 ± 26.1

0.226

Max SCr ( μmol/L)

441.7 ± 189.9

561.0 ± 239.2

< 0.001

BUN at discharge (mmol/L)

29.6 ± 17.7

34.2 ± 20.9

0.356

Scr at discharge (μmol/L)

275.5 ± 164.3

377.2 ± 265.8

0.007

K+ after RRT ((mmol/L)

4.5 ± 0.8

4.8 ± 0.5

0.008

Urinary volume after 72 h (ml)

1590 (450 - 3285)

370 (84- 1365)

0.002

Oliguria resolve time (d)

2.5 (1.0 - 3.8)

5 (2.5 - 8.5)

0.033

Complete renal recovery (%)

37%

19%

0.016

Time for complete renal recovery (d)

13 ± 9

22 ± 14

0.042

Partial renal recovery (%)

9%

15%

0.409

RRT independence at discharge (%)

42%

29%

0.111

Max BUN = maximum blood urea nitrogen, Max SCr = maximum serum creatinine.

Hemodynamic parameters and safety of therapy

The incidence of tachycardia and blood coagulation was significantly higher in the DHF than in the GDRRT group (79% vs. 60%, P = 0.018; 37% vs. 21%, P = 0.041). There were no significant differences in MAP values and in the incidence of hypotension within the first 72 h of treatment between the 2 groups (82 ± 12 vs. 83 ± 15 mmHg, P = 0.664; 38% vs. 40%, P = 0.862). There was no significant difference in the daily ultrafiltration volume between the 2 groups (2112 ± 768 vs. 1925 ± 866 ml, P = 0.179). The major anticoagulant medication in the DHF group was LMH (60%), whereas in the GDRRT group, most patients (67%) received no anticoagulation medication (Table 5).
Table 5

Hemodynamic parameters and adverse events within the first 72 h of treatment

 

GDRRT (n = 70)

DHF (n = 70)

P value

Tachycardia (%)

60%

79%

0.018

MAP (mmHg)

82 ± 12

83 ± 15

0.664

Hypotension (%)

38%

40%

0.862

Blood coagulation (%)

21%

37%

0.041

Daily ultrafiltration volume (ml)

2112 ± 768

1925 ± 866

0.179

Anticoagulant therapies

   

    Unfractionated heparin

5%

20%

< 0.01

    LMWH

28%

60%

< 0.01

    No therapy

67%

20%

< 0.01

Dialysate + filtration rate (ml/kg/h)

24.2 ± 11.1

63.7 ± 12.6

 

MAP = mean arterial pressure; LMWH = low-molecular-weight heparin.

Discussion

Although high-dose HF can help alleviate systemic inflammatory responses, it also can be harmful, due to its non-selective filtration, which can lead to the loss of heat, nutrients, and drugs [25]. In our study, GDRRT was mostly composed of HD, which can correct azotemia and acid-base disorders. High-dose HF was employed only for patients with severe sepsis, in order to support the internal environment and extra-renal organs, and to control inflammation and achieve hemodynamic stability, thereby improving immune paralysis and ventilatory functions. However, the incidence of sepsis in our study was only 18% for the GDRRT group and 23% for the DHF patients - lower than the previously reported values of 62.4% [9] and 46.8% in RTT patients after surgery. It has been suggested that HD often results in hemodynamic instability, but in this study, hypotension occurred at similar rates during intermittent HD sessions in the 2 groups, and tachycardia occurred more frequently in the DHF group. This can be explained by the low ultrafiltrate rate, which maintained stable hemodynamics in the GDRRT group, because the HD dose in the DHF group was significantly higher than in the GDRRT group (63.7 vs. 24.2 ml/kg/h). These values were also similar to the previously published values of 57 ml/kg/h for IRRT and 42 ml/kg/h for continued veno-veno HF (CVVH) treatment for cardiac surgery AKI patients [26]. The lower ultrafiltrate rate also reduced the need for anticoagulant medication and led to a lower incidence of blood coagulation in the GDRRT group.

The absence of complete renal recovery from AKI is one of the major risk factors of ESRD [27]. Bagshaw et al. reported that, of 240 critically ill patients who required dialysis, 32% were on chronic renal replacement therapy at hospital discharge and 22% persisted on dialysis after 1 year. Others also suggested that one of the purposes of RRT in treating AKI should be the promotion of renal function recovery and independence from dialysis as soon as possible [28, 29]. But the use of higher dialysis dose doesn’t appear to have a strong influence on renal recovery [9]. In our study, GDRRT led to significantly greater elimination of BUN and SCr, along with correction of hyperkalemia (Table 4). GDRRT was mainly composed of bedside HD, which may correct azotemia and electrolyte disorders more effectively than DHF. Because of the flexibility of GDRRT regarding dose and treatment time, urinary volume after 72 h of treatment was much higher and oliguria resolved much faster in the GDRRT group, which may have resulted in better renal outcome.

Even though treatment with GDRRT did not result in a survival advantage over DHF, the complete renal recovery rate was significantly higher in the GDRRT group compared with the DHF group (37% vs. 19%, P = 0.016) and less time was necessary for renal recovery (13.9 vs. 22.14 days, P = 0.042). The lack of a statistically significant difference in hospital mortality between the 2 groups might have been due to the small sample size. Furthermore, DHF is beneficial for sepsis, the incidence of which was higher in the DHF group, and this might have improved the overall outcome.

Our study has several limitations. It was a single-center study with a small sample size, and the time of the survey period may have had some influence on the result, due to changes in surgery procedures and other clinical treatments, but our in-hospital mortality rate was comparable to the previously published rates of 38.8% - 59% for cardiac surgery RTT patients [8, 9, 11, 26].

Conclusions

Our results suggest that GDRRT is safe and effective for patients with AKI after cardiac surgery and is superior to DHF for improving renal recovery. In addition, it reduces hospitalization time and expenses. GDRRT can be applied to most AKI patients after cardiac surgery, while DHF may be more suitable for critically ill AKI patients with sepsis or MODS.

Abbreviations

GDT: 

Goal directed therapy

EGDT: 

Early goal-directed fluid therapy

RRT: 

Renal replacement therapy

GDRRT: 

Goal-directed renal replacement therapy

DHF: 

Daily hemofiltration

HD: 

Hemodialysis

HF: 

Hemofiltration

HDF: 

Hemodiafiltration

AKI: 

Acute kidney injury

CRRT: 

Continuous renal replacement therapy

IRRT: 

Intermittent renal replacement therapy

SLED: 

Sustained low-efficiency dialysis

ICU: 

Intensive care unit

APACHE: 

Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation

SOFA: 

Sepsis-related organ failure assessment

BUN: 

Blood urea nitrogen

SCr: 

Serum creatinine

MAP: 

Mean arterial pressure

CVP: 

Central venous pressure

LMWH: 

Low-molecular-weight heparin

ARDS: 

Acute respiratory distress syndrome

MODS: 

Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome

CABG: 

Coronary artery bypass graft

CVVH: 

Continued veno-veno hemofiltration

ESRD: 

End-stage renal disease.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to our colleagues whose name did not appear on the paper but also contributed to the article. We especially thank Wei Jin, Yan Xu, Yanyan Heng, Rong Xu, Hong Liu, Xiaomeng Cui, and Peiyi Lin for collecting the data, and Hao Chen and Shouguo Yang for conducting the study.

This work was supported by a grant from Key Projects in the National Science & Technology Pillar Program in the Twelfth Five-year Plan Period (2011BAI10B07) and the Project of Technology Committee in Shanghai (12DJ1400200).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Nephrology, Zhongshan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University
(2)
Shanghai Institute of Kidney and Dialysis
(3)
Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University

References

  1. Haase M, Shaw A: Acute kidney injury and cardiopulmonary bypass: special situation or same old problem?. Contrib Nephrol. 2010, 165: 33-38.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Fang Y, Ding X, Zhong Y, Zou J, Teng J, Tang Y, Lin J, Lin P: Acute kidney injury in a Chinese hospitalized population. Blood Purif. 2010, 30: 120-126. 10.1159/000319972.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Rosner MH, Okusa MD: Acute kidney injury associated with cardiac surgery. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006, 1: 19-32. 10.2215/CJN.01420406.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ghahramani N, Shadrou S, Hollenbeak C: A systematic review of continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent haemodialysis in management of patients with acute renal failure. Nephrol (Carlton). 2008, 13: 570-578. 10.1111/j.1440-1797.2008.00966.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Bagshaw SM, Berthiaume LR, Delaney A, Bellomo R: Continuous versus intermittent renal replacement therapy for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2008, 36: 610-617. 10.1097/01.CCM.0B013E3181611F552.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Holt BG, White JJ, Kuthiala A, Fall P, Szerlip HM: Sustained low-efficiency daily dialysis with hemofiltration for acute kidney injury in the presence of sepsis. Clin Nephrol. 2008, 69: 40-46. 10.5414/CNP69040.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Ricci Z, Salvatori G, Bonello M, Pisitkun T, Bolgan I, D'Amico G, Dan M, Piccinni P, Ronco C: In vivo validation of the adequacy calculator for continuous renal replacement therapies. Crit Care. 2005, 9: R266-R273. 10.1186/cc3517.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Bellomo R, Cass A, Cole L, Finfer S, Gallagher M, Lo S, McArthur C, McGuinness S, Myburgh J, Norton R, Scheinkestel C, Su S: Intensity of continuous renal-replacement therapy in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2009, 361: 1627-1638.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Palevsky PM, Zhang JH, O'Connor TZ, Chertow GM, Crowley ST, Choudhury D, Finkel K, Kellum JA, Paganini E, Schein RM, Smith MW, Swanson KM, Thompson BT, Vijayan A, Watnick S, Star RA, Peduzzi P: Intensity of renal support in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. N Engl J Med. 2008, 359: 7-20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Elahi M, Asopa S, Pflueger A, Hakim N, Matata B: Acute kidney injury following cardiac surgery: impact of early versus late haemofiltration on morbidity and mortality. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009, 35: 854-863. 10.1016/j.ejcts.2008.12.019.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bapat V, Sabetai M, Roxburgh J, Young C, Venn G: Early and intensive continuous veno-venous hemofiltration for acute renal failure after cardiac surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2004, 3: 426-430. 10.1016/j.icvts.2004.03.002.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Demirkilic U, Kuralay E, Yenicesu M, Caglar K, Oz BS, Cingoz F, Gunay C, Yildirim V, Ceylan S, Arslan M, Vural A, Tatar H: Timing of replacement therapy for acute renal failure after cardiac surgery. J Card Surg. 2004, 19: 17-20. 10.1111/j.0886-0440.2004.04004.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Shoemaker WC, Montgomery ES, Kaplan E, Elwyn DH: Physiologic patterns in surviving and nonsurviving shock patients. Use of sequential cardiorespiratory variables in defining criteria for therapeutic goals and early warning of death. Arch Surg. 1973, 106: 630-636. 10.1001/archsurg.1973.01350170004003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dalfino L, Giglio MT, Puntillo F, Marucci M, Brienza N: Haemodynamic goal-directed therapy and postoperative infections: earlier is better. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2011, 15: R154-10.1186/cc10284.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Goepfert MS, Reuter DA, Akyol D, Lamm P, Kilger E, Goetz AE: Goal-directed fluid management reduces vasopressor and catecholamine use in cardiac surgery patients. Intensive Care Med. 2007, 33: 96-103. 10.1007/s00134-006-0404-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Goepfert MS, Richter HP, Eulenburg CZ, Gruetzmacher J, Rafflenbeul E, Roeher K, Sandersleben AV, Diedrichs S, Reichenspurner H, Goetz AE, Reuter DA: Individually optimized hemodynamic therapy reduces complications and length of stay in the intensive care unit: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology. 2013, 19 (4): 824-836.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Lobo SM, de Oliveira NE: Clinical review: What are the best hemodynamic targets for noncardiac surgical patients?. Crit Care. 2013, 17: 210-10.1186/cc11861.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldstein SL: Fluid management in acute kidney injury. J Intensive Care Med. 2012, [Epub ahead of print][PMID:23753221]Google Scholar
  19. Mehta RL: Continuous renal replacement therapy in the critically ill patient. Kidney Int. 2005, 67: 781-795. 10.1111/j.1523-1755.2005.67140.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE: APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med. 1985, 13: 818-829. 10.1097/00003246-198510000-00009.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, Willatts S, De Mendonca A, Bruining H, Reinhart CK, Suter PM, Thijs LG: The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 1996, 22: 707-710. 10.1007/BF01709751.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Roques F, Nashef SA, Michel P, Gauducheau E, de Vincentiis C, Baudet E, Cortina J, David M, Faichney A, Gabrielle F, Gams E, Harjula A, Jones MT, Pintor PP, Salamon R, Thulin L: Risk factors and outcome in European cardiac surgery: analysis of the EuroSCORE multinational database of 19030 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999, 15: 816-822. 10.1016/S1010-7940(99)00106-2. discussion 822-813View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Mehta RL, Kellum JA, Shah SV, Molitoris BA, Ronco C, Warnock DG, Levin A: Acute Kidney Injury Network: report of an initiative to improve outcomes in acute kidney injury. Crit Care. 2007, 11: R31-10.1186/cc5713.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Bone RC, Balk RA, Cerra FB, Dellinger RP, Fein AM, Knaus WA, Schein RM, Sibbald WJ: Definitions for sepsis and organ failure and guidelines for the use of innovative therapies in sepsis. The ACCP/SCCM Consensus Conference Committee. American College of Chest Physicians/Society of Critical Care Medicine. Chest. 1992, 101: 1644-1655. 10.1378/chest.101.6.1644.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Honore PM, Joannes-Boyau O, Gressens B: Blood and plasma treatments: the rationale of high-volume hemofiltration. Contrib Nephrol. 2007, 156: 387-395.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Vidal S, Richebe P, Barandon L, Calderon J, Tafer N, Pouquet O, Fournet N, Janvier G: Evaluation of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration for the treatment of cardiogenic shock in conjunction with acute renal failure after cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2009, 36: 572-579. 10.1016/j.ejcts.2009.04.018.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hsu CY: Linking the population epidemiology of acute renal failure, chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2007, 16: 221-226. 10.1097/MNH.0b013e3280895ad9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hsu CY, Chertow GM, McCulloch CE, Fan D, Ordonez JD, Go AS: Nonrecovery of kidney function and death after acute on chronic renal failure. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009, 4: 891-898. 10.2215/CJN.05571008.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Macedo E, Bouchard J, Mehta RL: Renal recovery following acute kidney injury. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2008, 14: 660-665. 10.1097/MCC.0b013e328317ee6e.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Xu et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement