Development of the New Kibou® Equipment for Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy from Scratch to the Final Configuration.

A new technology has recently appeared in the area of extracorporeal therapies for critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. The International Renal Research Institute of Vicenza was involved from the beginning in the development of a new continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) equipment with peculiar characteristics. We report the overall experience from design of the new machine to its in vitro and in vivo testing. Kibou® (Asahi Kasei Kuraray Medical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) is a new multifunctional machine designed for delivering RRT. Kibou® carries out many features of the fourth generation CRRT machines including the possibility of a dynamic prescription and reduction of nursing workload. We describe our first experience with this new device, focusing on several usability and performance parameters. A specific in vitro protocol was designed to analyze the various characteristics and accuracy of performance of the machine. Furthermore, a preliminary in vivo alpha trial with 12 CRRT sessions was performed to test, characterize and evaluate the machine in terms of usability, flexibility and reliability. The in vitro evaluation confirmed an adequate design and a good usability of the machine with accurate delivery of prescribed parameters. No adverse events were observed during the in vivo test that confirmed usability and safety together with accuracy of treatment delivery in different modalities. In general, the machine was rated by physicians and nurses involved in the evaluation as practical and easy to use, although a specific training is required to familiarize with the equipment. A large-scale multicenter beta trial is required to confirm the results reported in this preliminary evaluation in terms of safety, accuracy and performance of Kibou®.

Effect of heart rate control with esmolol on hemodynamic and clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: ß-Blocker therapy may control heart rate and attenuate the deleterious effects of ß-adrenergic receptor stimulation in septic shock. However, ß-Blockers are not traditionally used for this condition and may worsen cardiovascular decompensation related through negative inotropic and hypotensive effects. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of the short-acting ß-blocker esmolol in patients with severe septic shock. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Open-label, randomized phase 2 study, conducted in a university hospital intensive care unit (ICU) between November 2010 and July 2012, involving patients in septic shock with a heart rate of 95/min or higher requiring high-dose norepinephrine to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or higher. INTERVENTIONS: We randomly assigned 77 patients to receive a continuous infusion of esmolol titrated to maintain heart rate between 80/min and 94/min for their ICU stay and 77 patients to standard treatment. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Our primary outcome was a reduction in heart rate below the predefined threshold of 95/min and to maintain heart rate between 80/min and 94/min by esmolol treatment over a 96-hour period. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and organ function measures; norepinephrine dosages at 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours; and adverse events and mortality occurring within 28 days after randomization. RESULTS: Targeted heart rates were achieved in all patients in the esmolol group compared with those in the control group. The median AUC for heart rate during the first 96 hours was -28/min (IQR, -37 to -21) for the esmolol group vs -6/min (95% CI, -14 to 0) for the control group with a mean reduction of 18/min (P < .001). For stroke volume index, the median AUC for esmolol was 4 mL/m2 (IQR, -1 to 10) vs 1 mL/m2 for the control group (IQR, -3 to 5; P = .02), whereas the left ventricular stroke work index for esmolol was 3 mL/m2 (IQR, 0 to 8) vs 1 mL/m2 for the control group (IQR, -2 to 5; P = .03). For arterial lactatemia, median AUC for esmolol was -0.1 mmol/L (IQR, -0.6 to 0.2) vs 0.1 mmol/L for the control group (IQR, -0.3 for 0.6; P = .007); for norepinephrine, -0.11 µg/kg/min (IQR, -0.46 to 0.02) for the esmolol group vs -0.01 µg/kg/min (IQR, -0.2 to 0.44) for the control group (P = .003). Fluid requirements were reduced in the esmolol group: median AUC was 3975 mL/24 h (IQR, 3663 to 4200) vs 4425 mL/24 h(IQR, 4038 to 4775) for the control group (P < .001). We found no clinically relevant differences between groups in other cardiopulmonary variables nor in rescue therapy requirements. Twenty-eight day mortality was 49.4% in the esmolol group vs 80.5% in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.59; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For patients in septic shock, open-label use of esmolol vs standard care was associated with reductions in heart rates to achieve target levels, without increased adverse events. The observed improvement in mortality and other secondary clinical outcomes warrants further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01231698.