Outcomes of cancer and non-cancer patients with acute kidney injury and need of renal replacement therapy admitted to general intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: Studies on cancer patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) are restricted to specialized intensive care units (ICUs). The aim of this study was to compare the characteristics and outcomes of cancer and non-cancer patients requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) for AKI in general ICUs. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in 14 ICUs from three tertiary care hospitals. A total of 773 (non-cancer 85%; cancer 15%) consecutive patients were included over a 44-month period. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with hospital mortality. RESULTS: Continuous RRT was used in 79% patients. The main contributing factors for AKI were sepsis (72%) and ischaemia/shock (66%); AKI was multifactorial in 87% of cancer and in 71% non-cancer patients. Hospital mortality rates were higher in cancer (78%) than in non-cancer patients (68%) (P=0.042). However, in multivariate analyses, older age, medical admission, poor chronic health status, comorbidities, ICU days until the RRT start and number of associated organ dysfunctions were associated with hospital mortality. The diagnosis of cancer was not independently associated with mortality [odds ratio=1.54 (95% confidence interval, 0.88-2.62), P=0.115]. Mortality in cancer patients was mostly dependent on the number of associated organ dysfunctions. Of note, 85% cancer patients recovered renal function at hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: In general ICUs, one in six patients requiring RRT has cancer. Despite a relatively higher mortality, the presence of cancer was not independently associated with mortality in the present cohort.

SAPS 3 scores at the start of renal replacement therapy predict mortality in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury.

Patients can experience acute kidney injury and require renal replacement therapy at any time during their admission to intensive care units. Prognostic scores have been used to characterize and stratify patients by the severity of acute disease, but scores based on findings during the day of admission may not be reliable surrogate markers of the severity of acute illness in this population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of SAPS 3 and MPM(0)-III scores, determined at the start of renal replacement therapy, in 244 patients admitted to 11 units of three hospitals in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Continuous renal replacement therapy was used as first indication in 84% of these patients. Discrimination by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly better for SAPS 3 than for MPM(0)-III, as was the calibration measured by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. Mortality prediction and calibration approached those eventually found when a customized equation of SAPS 3 for Central and South America was used. After adjusting for other relevant covariates in multivariate analyses, both higher prognostic scores and length of stay in the unit prior to the start of renal replacement therapy were the main predictive factors for hospital mortality. Our study shows that a customized SAPS 3 model was accurate in predicting mortality and seems a promising algorithm to characterize and stratify patients in clinical studies.

Outcomes of critically ill patients with acute kidney injury and end-stage renal disease requiring renal replacement therapy: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the characteristics and outcomes of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) with those of matched controls of patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring renal replacement therapy. METHODS: A case-control study was performed at the intensive care units (ICU) of three tertiary-care hospitals between December 2004 and September 2007. Patients were admitted with life-threatening complications and were matched for age and for severity of illness and organ dysfunctions. Conditional logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients with ESRD and 54 patients with AKI were eligible for the study and were well matched. In general, clinical characteristics were similar. Nonetheless, comorbidities were more frequent in patients with ESRD, and patients with AKI more frequently required mechanical ventilation. ICU (43% versus 20%, P = 0.023) and hospital (50% versus 24%, P = 0.010) mortality rates were higher in patients with AKI. In addition, patients with AKI experienced longer ICU and hospitals stays. The SAPS II score had a regular ability in discriminating survivors and non-survivors, and tended to underestimate mortality in patients with AKI and overestimate in patients with ESRD. When all patients were evaluated, older age [OR = 1.05 (95% CI, 1.01-1.09)], poor chronic health status [OR = 3.90(1.19-12.82)] and number of associated organ failures [OR = 4.44(1.97-10.00)] were the main independent predictors of mortality. After adjusting for those covariates, ESRD was still associated with a lower probability of death [OR = 0.17 (0.06-0.050)]. CONCLUSIONS: ESRD patients with life-threatening complications had significantly better outcome than AKI patients.

Effects of early changes in organ dysfunctions on the outcomes of critically ill patients in need of renal replacement therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Acute kidney injury usually develops in critically ill patients in the context of multiple organ dysfunctions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of changes in associated organ dysfunctions over the first three days of renal replacement therapy on the outcomes of patients with acute kidney injury. METHODS: Over a 19-month period, we evaluated 260 patients admitted to the intensive care units of three tertiary-care hospitals who required renal replacement therapy for > 48 h. Organ dysfunctions were evaluated by SOFA score (excluding renal points) on the first (D1) and third (D3) days of renal replacement therapy. Absolute (A-SOFA) and relative (Delta-SOFA) changes in SOFA scores were also calculated. RESULTS: Hospital mortality rate was 75%. Organ dysfunctions worsened (A-SOFA>0) in 53%, remained unchanged (A-SOFA=0) in 17% and improved (A-SOFA<0) in 30% of patients; and mortality was lower in the last group (80% vs. 84% vs. 61%, p=0.003). SOFA on D1 (p<0.001), SOFA on D3 (p<0.001), A-SOFA (p=0.019) and Delta-SOFA (p=0.016) were higher in non-survivors. However, neither A-SOFA nor Delta-SOFA discriminated survivors from non-survivors on an individual basis. Adjusting for other covariates (including SOFA on D1), A-SOFA and Delta-SOFA were associated with increased mortality, and patients in whom SOFA scores worsened or remained unchanged had poorer outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to baseline values, early changes in SOFA score after the start of renal replacement therapy were associated with hospital mortality. However, no prognostic score should be used as the only parameter to predict individual outcomes.