The efficacy of continuous blood purification in the treatment of severe heart failure combined with renal failure / 中国医师进修杂志

Objective:To explore the clinical value of continuous blood purification(CBP) in patients with severe heart failure combined with renal failure and its effect on serum p66Shc protein, soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase receptor 1 (sFlt-1), and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase-1 (TIMP-1).Methods:Ninety-seven patients with severe heart failure combined with renal failure admitted to the Chaoyang Central Hospital from March 2017 to October 2019 were enrolled and they were divided into the control group (48 cases) and the observation group (49 cases) according to the random number table method. The control group was treated with intermittent hemodialysis (IHD), while the observation group was treated with CBP. Changes of the efficacy, the renal function indexes, cardiac function indexes, p66Shc protein, sFlt-1, TIMP-1 before and after treatment were compared between the two groups. The occurrence of adverse reactions were recorded.Results:The total effective rate in the observation group was better than thatin the control group: 79.59% (39/49) vs. 60.42% (29/48), χ 2 = 4.25, P<0.05. After treated for 1 week, the levels of blood urea nitrogen, serum creatinine, serum phosphorus, blood uric acid and β2 microglobulinin the observation group were lower than those in the control group: (12.63 ± 3.14) mmol/L vs. (16.23 ± 4.74) mmol/L, (175.52 ± 39.57) μmol/L vs. (240.15 ± 50.18) μmol/L, (1.20 ± 0.23) mmol/L vs. (1.37 ± 0.31) mmol/L, (265.15 ± 34.79) μmol/L vs.(297.52 ± 50.07) μmol/L, (28.75 ± 5.14) mg/L vs. (33.52 ± 7.39) mg/L, the differences were statistically significant ( P<0.05). The levels of left ventricular ejection fraction, cardiac output and stroke volume in the observation group were higher than those in the control group: (53.63 ± 7.96)% vs. (49.52 ± 5.14)%, (58.45 ± 15.23) ml vs. (49.58 ± 9.52) ml, (4.59 ± 0.52) L/min vs. (4.01 ± 0.23) L/min, the differences were statistically significant ( P<0.05). The levels of p66Shc, sFlt-1, TIMP-1 in the observation group were lower than thosein the control group: 1.11 ± 0.36 vs. 1.45 ± 0.42, (15.76 ± 4.34) μg/L vs. (19.87 ± 5.66) μg/L, (59.14 ± 10.57) μg/L vs. (65.39 ± 9.45) μg/L, the differences were statistically significant ( P<0.05). The total adverse reaction rate in the observation group was lower than that in the observation group: 14.29% (7/49) vs. 31.25% (15/48), χ2 = 3.98, P<0.05. Conclusions:CBP therapy for patients with severe heart failure combined with renal failure has better efficacy than IHD, and can improve the patient′s cardiac and kidney function, reduce the levels of p66Shc protein, sFlt-1 and TIMP-1, reduce adverse reactions. It is safe and feasible.

Evaluation of intermittent hemodialysis conducted off-site on patients with renal insufficiency admitted in the intensive care unit of a developing country

Background: In most developing countries, the renal replacement therapy (RRT) in ICU is not performed locally. We designed this study to assess the intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) offsite intakes on survival in critically ill patients admitted with renal failure.Methods: We prospectively analyzed all patients admitted to medical ICU with Acute Renal Failure (AKF) or Chronic Renal Failure (CKF) from February 2011 to September 2013. Patients were divided into two groups: those that received IHD in Hemodialysis Unit (IHD+) and those who did not (IHD-). Every patient IHD+ was matched to a patient IHD - using propensity score.Results: 202 patients were included: 151 with ARF and 51 with CRF. 116 patients were matched (age: 48±18 years; 46F/70M; median serum creatinine: 51mg/l; IQR: 32-90 mg/l). The total number of dialysis sessions was 112 for 58 patients (1.8±1.4 session/patient). The median delay to initiate IHD was 5.5h (IQR: 2-8h) and median duration of transportation was 10 min (IQR: 10-15min) with 23.6% transportation incidents. Significant hypotension with tachycardia were reported during IHD. ICU mortality rate was the same in the both groups (58.6%). In multivariate analysis, CRF (RR=2.69; p=0.006), serum creatinine >50mg/l (RR=3.54; p=0.007) and requirement for vasopressors infusion (RR=1.8; p=0.041) were independent predictive factors for receiving IHD.Conclusions: Our study doesn’t show an improvement in survival in ICU patients who receive IHD offsite. The probability to require IHD offsite increases with CRF and the use of vasopressors.

Effects of different blood purification on the prognosis of patients with acute septic kidney injury / 中华急诊医学杂志

Objective To evaluate the different methods of blood purification for acute septic renal injury (AKI) in respect of outcome by using RIFLE(risk,injury,failure,loss and end-stage renal disease)criteria and A-PACHE Ⅱ score. MethodData of 96 patients with ASRI admired to ICU of Tianhe Hospital, Tianjin, from March 2004 to September 2006 were analyzed. Including criteria: 2001 International Sepsis Definitions Conference and 2004 RIFLE criteria of AKI. The methods of blood purification used continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT, n=54) and imermittent hemodialysis (IHD, n=42).The patients of CRRT group could be classified into stages Ⅰ, Ⅱ and Ⅲ referred to RIFLE criteria. Excel was evaluated to set up clinical data base from documented material. Data were analyzed with SPSS version 11. 5 software. Physical signs, laboratory findings, variation of APACHE Ⅱ score and outcomes of patients were documented evaluated. Data of two groups compared using indepent samples T test, before and after the treatment compared using paired-samples T test, rate compared using chi-square test. Results①There were no statistical differences in APACHE Ⅱ score and creatinine (Cr) between CRRT group and IHD group before treatment (P>0.05). The mortalities of CRRT group and IHD group were 51.9％ and 52.4％, respectively (P>0.05), but the recovery rates of renal function in CRRT group and IHD group were 92.3％ and 65.0％ ,respectively (P< 0.05).②Mean arterial pressure (MAP),oxygen saturation (SpO2) of CRRT group were lower than those of IHD group (P<0.05) and they increased to some extent after treatment (P< 0.05). ③In the patients of stag Ⅰ ,the survival rate was 78.6％, APACHE Ⅱ score was 25.4± 2.5 before treatment, renal function recovery rate was 90.9％ ,and APACHE Ⅱ changed - 13.6 ± 4.3, while those relevant markers in the patients of stage Ⅲ were 38.1％, 36.1 ± 5.7,62.5 ％ and - 7.1 ± 4.2, respectively (P<0.05). ConclusionsThe RIFLE criteria has guiding significance for the early diagnosis and prognosis of ASRI,and the RIFLE and APACHE Ⅲ score may help to choose the optimum opportunity of treatment and the early CRRT as soon as possible after diagnosis can improve the outcome of patients with acute septic renal injury.

Renal Replacement Therapies on the Outcomes of Acute Renal Failure Patients in ICU / 대한마취과학회지

BACKGROUND: The worldwide standard of renal replacement therapy for acute renal failure patients is intermittent hemodialysis (IHD). Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) has recently emerged as an alternative modality. We performed the study to find the effects of renal replacement therapy on outcome of the acute renal failure patients in the ICU. METHODS: 373 adult patients under the diagnosis of acute renal failure (ARF) in the ICUs (medical-surgical and coronary care unit) at Severance Hospital Yonsei University College of Medicine between January 1, 1998 and July 31, 2002 were included. Patients with ARF were divided into two groups depending on their need for renal replacement therapy. Renal replacement therapy group was subdivided into IHD and CRRT group. RESULTS: There was significant difference in the mortality between renal replacement group and non-renal replacement group, 74.4% vs. 45.2% (P < 0.001). Renal function recovery rate of renal replacement group was lower compared to that of non-renal replacement group, 36 % vs. 59% (P < 0.001). APACHE II score, ventilator support, vasopressors, number of organ failure, and oliguria during RRT were higher in CRRT group than in IHD group (P < 0.001). CRRT group was associated with higher mortality rate, CRRT 86.2% vs. IHD 42.2% and lower renal function recovery rate, CRRT 9.8% vs. IHD 63.0% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the result of this study implies that IHD is associated with better survival and better renal recovery, the preferred use of CRRT in severely ill patients with an unstable circulatory system must be reminded.

Delivery of Dialysis Dose of Intermittent Hemodialysis in the Patients with Acute Renal Failure and its Contributing Factors / 대한신장학회잡지

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested that the outcomes of the patients with acute renal failure (ARF) may related to delivered dose of dialysis. In such context, a number of investigators have reported about delivered dose of dialysis and its contribution to outcomes of ARF, using Kt/V. The purpose of the study was to evaluate actual delivered dose of dialysis in intermittent hemodialysis (HD) in critically ill ARF patients, clinical factors contributing delivery of dialysis dose, and relationship of delivered dialysis dose and survival. METHODS: Delivered and prescribed dose of dialysis, presented as Kt/V, were measured in ARF patients intermittent HD in intensive care unit of Inha University Hospital from January 1999, until December 1999, using single pool urea kinetic model. RESULTS: All subjects received intermittent HD of 6.4+/-4.8 times with mean of 225.6+/-40.4 min per session. Overall survival was 55.5%. Prescribed Kt/V in all subjects was 1.24+/-0.39, but actual delivered Kt/ V was 1.08+/-0.17. A mean delivered/prescribed Kt/V ratio was 87.1+/-43%. Duration of HD session (R= -0.547, p=0.019), Cleveland Clinic Foundation Severity Score (R=-0.486, p=0.041), and frequency of hypotensive episodes (R=-0.419, p=0.043) were significantly correlated with delivered/prescribed Kt/V ratio. Delivered dose was under 1.2 in 66.7% of the subjects. Survival rate of these patients was 50.0%, which was lower as compared to 66.6% of the patients with delivered dose over 1.2. Patients with low delivered dose (Kt/V<1.2) showed significantly low prescribed dose and short HD time (p<0.05). Delivered Kt/V was correlated with BUN at initiation of dialysis, HD duration, and prescribed Kt/V (p<0.05). Non-survivors showed significantly low initial serum creatinine, low CCF severity score, high frequency of hypotensive episodes, and less use of heparin (p< 0.05). Prescribed Kt/V was not different between survivors and non-survivor (1.22+/-0.30 vs 1.31+/-0.45), but delivered Kt/V (1.17+/-0.17 vs. 1.04+/-0.17; p<0.05) and delivered/prscribed Kt/V (95.9+/-22.6% vs. 73.9+/-15.6%; p<0.05) were significantly higher in survivors than in non-survivors. CONCLUSION: In ARF patients, the delivery of dialysis was significantly lower than as was expected. Delivered/prescribed Kt/V was about 87% and more than half of the patients received intermittent HD of Kt/V less than 1.2. Better survival was associated with higher delivered dose of dialysis. We need further prospective studies about the causal relationship between delivered dose of dialysis and outcomes in ARF patients.

Impact of Dialysis Modalities on Survival of Acute Renal Failure in Intensive Care Unit / 대한신장학회잡지

BACKGROUND: Although continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) has several theoretical advantages compared with intermittent hemodialysis (IHD), including enhanced hemodynamic stability, increased solute removal, and greater ultrafiltration capacity, what method of renal replacement therapy should be used in ICU patients with ARF is still unanswered. We performed the following study to estimate the impact of hemodialysis modality on survival. METHODS: The 63 patients who underwent renal replacement therapy in ICU, InHa Hospital between April 1997 and March 2001, were classified according to disease severity (Cleveland Clinic Foundation Score, mild 1-7, moderate 8-14, severe 15-20) and predialytic systolic BP (unstable 120 mmHg). Then survival rates of each group were compared by hemodialysis modalities. RESULTS: Total cumulative survival rate of CRRT is low than that of IHD (38.5 vs 50.0%, p<0.05). However, cumulative survival rate on CRRT is higher in the group that predialytic systolic BP ranged from 110 to 125 mmHg than in the group of IHD (70.0 vs 25.0%, p<0.05). Cumulative survival rate on CRRT is also higher in the group that CCF score ranged from 8 to 14 than in the group of IHD (47.1 vs 25.0%, p=0.073). CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate disease severity and borderline predialytic systolic BP, more extended application of CRRT would improve survival rate.