Do anti-platelet drugs improve duration of continuous renal replacement therapy? A retrospective cohort study in cardiac ICU patients

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of anti-platelet drug/s on duration of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in those patients where anti-coagulants were not used due to certain contraindications and in cases where patients were on anti-platelet drugs and were given anti-coagulant during CRRT. Method: This single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted using the medical records patients treated with CRRT in the cardiac ICU of the inpatient urban facility, located in North India. Data was collected from only those patients who received CRRT for the duration of at least 12 h. Patient’s in NAC group were not on any anti-platelet/s and did not receive anti-coagulant during CRRT. AC and AP group patients received anti-coagulant alone or were already on anti-platelet/s and did not receive anti-coagulant respectively while ACAP group patients were on anti-platelet drug/s and also received anti-coagulant during CRRT. Result: Patients in AC, AP, or ACAP group showed significantly ( p < 0.001) higher CRRT filter life compared to NAC group. The median CRRT filter life was significantly higher in the ACAP group compared to AC ( p < 0.05) and AP ( p < 0.001) groups. Conclusion: This study indicates that systemic anti-platelet therapy can provide additional support in critical patients undergoing CRRT even with or without anti-coagulant therapy. However, the increase in CRRT filter life was more profound in patients who were on anti-platelet/s and also received anti-coagulant drug/s during CRRT.

Low Blood Flow Continuous Veno-Venous Haemodialysis Compared with Higher Blood Flow Continuous Veno-Venous Haemodiafiltration: Effect on Alarm Rates, Filter Life, and Azotaemic Control

<b><i>Title:</i></b> Low blood flow continuous veno-venous haemodialysis (CVVHD) compared with higher blood flow continuous veno-venous haemodiafiltration (CVVHDF): effect on alarm rates, filter life, and azotaemic control. <b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) can be delivered via convective, diffusive, or mixed approaches. Higher blood flows have been advocated for convective clearance efficiency and promotion of filter life. It is unclear whether a lower blood flow predominantly diffusive approach may benefit filter life and alarm rates. <b><i>Materials and Methods:</i></b> Sequential cohort study of 284 patients undergoing 874 CRRT circuits from January 2015 to August 2018 in a single university-associated tertiary referral hospital in Australia. Patients underwent a protocol of either CVVHDF at blood flow 200–250 mL/min or CVVHD at blood flow 100–130 mL/min. Machine and patient data were analysed. Outcomes of azotaemic control, filter life, and warning alarm rates were log transformed and analysed with mixed linear modelling with patient as a random effect. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Both groups had similar azotaemic control (effect estimate on log creatinine CVVHD vs. CVVHDF 1.04 [0.87–1.25], <i>p</i> = 0.68) and median filter life (CVVHDF 16.8 [8.4–90.5] h and CVVHD 16.4 [9.4–82.3] h, <i>p</i> = 0.97). However, circuit pressures were less extreme with a narrower distribution during CVVHD. Multivariate analysis showed CVVHD had a reduced risk of warning alarms (incidence risk ratio [IRR] 0.51 [0.38–0.70]) and femoral access placement also had a reduced risk of alarms (IRR 0.55 [0.41–0.73]). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Low blood flow CVVHD and femoral vascular access reduce alarms while maintaining azotaemic control and circuit patency thus minimizing bedside clinician workload.

Renal Replacement Therapy for Burn Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: To improve the prognosis of burn patients with renal replacement therapy (RRT), we performed this systematic review and meta-analysis.Methods: We searched multiple databases for studies published before February 2020. Studies about adult populations with burn injury, providing epidemiologic data on prevalence or mortality of RRT, were included. Results: A total of selected 58 studies, including 38,787 patients were enrolled in our analysis. The prevalence rates of RRT were 5.14% (95%CI 4.54%-5.74%) in all burn patients and 35.8% (95%CI 29.54%-42.07%) in acute kidney injury (AKI) patients. The prevalence of RRT among burn patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) was 10.92% (95%CI 8.71%-13.14%). The mortality of all burn patients with RRT was 65.52% (95%CI 58.41%-72.64%). The mortality of patients with RRT in ICU was 62.7% (95%CI 53.7%-71.7%). The mortality rate of RRT patients was 30.33% (95%CI 22.06%-38.59%) of the total. There was no significant correlation (r=-0.224, P=0.159) between the year of publication and the mortality of burn patients with RRT. Neither cohort studies nor RCT studies of subgroup analyses show that RRT could reduce the risk of death in burn patients with AKI. Bleeding (10.92%) and secondary infection (9.61%) were the most common RRT-related adverse reactions. Compared with heparin, regional citrate anticoagulation has advantages in superior filter life spans and fewer bleeding episodes. Dialysis-requiring AKI in burn patients could increases the risk of chronic kidney disease progression and end-stage renal disease. About 35% of RRT patients need to maintain hemodialysis temporarily, even if they survive and leave hospital. Conclusions: The prevalence of RRT is not low; approximately, one-third of burn patients with AKI need RRT. The mortality of burn patients with RRT is very high and accounts for 1/3 of the total deaths. There is no evidence that RRT can improve the prognosis of burn patients with AKI. Regional citrate anticoagulation has some advantages in reducing bleeding and extending filter life spans, which may be more suitable for severe burn patients with CRRT.