Validity of low-intensity continuous renal replacement therapy*.

OBJECTIVE

To study the hospital mortality of patients with severe acute kidney injury treated with low-intensity continuous renal replacement therapy.

DESIGN

Multicenter retrospective observational study (Japanese Society for Physicians and Trainees in Intensive Care), combined with previously conducted multinational prospective observational study (Beginning and Ending Supportive Therapy).

SETTING

Fourteen Japanese ICUs in 12 tertiary hospitals (Japanese Society for Physicians and Trainees in Intensive Care) and 54 ICUs in 23 countries (Beginning and Ending Supportive Therapy).

PATIENTS

Consecutive adult patients with severe acute kidney injury requiring continuous renal replacement therapy admitted to the participating ICUs in 2010 (Japanese Society for Physicians and Trainees in Intensive Care, n = 343) and 2001 (Beginning and Ending Supportive Therapy Beginning and Ending Supportive Therapy, n = 1,006).

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patient characteristics, variables at continuous renal replacement therapy initiation, continuous renal replacement therapy settings, and outcomes (ICU and hospital mortality and renal replacement therapy requirement at hospital discharge) were collected. Continuous renal replacement therapy intensity was arbitrarily classified into seven subclasses: less than 10, 10-15, 15-20, 20-25, 25-30, 30-35, and more than 35 mL/kg/hr. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to investigate risk factors for hospital mortality. The continuous renal replacement therapy dose in the Japanese Society for Physicians and Trainees in Intensive Care database was less than half of the Beginning and Ending Supportive Therapy database (800 mL/hr vs 2,000 mL/hr, p < 0.001). Even after adjusting for the body weight and dilution factor, continuous renal replacement therapy intensity was statistically different (14.3 mL/kg/hr vs 20.4 mL/kg/hr, p < 0.001). Patients in the Japanese Society for Physicians and Trainees in Intensive Care database had a lower ICU mortality (46.1% vs 55.3%, p = 0.003) and hospital mortality (58.6% vs 64.2%, p = 0.070) compared with patients in the Beginning and Ending Supportive Therapy database. In multivariable regression analysis after combining the two databases, no continuous renal replacement therapy intensity subclasses were found to be statistically different from the reference intensity (20-25 mL/kg/hr). Several sensitivity analyses (patients with sepsis, patients from Western countries in the Beginning and Ending Supportive Therapy database) confirmed no intensity-outcome relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous renal replacement therapy at a mean intensity of 14.3 mL/kg/hr did not have worse outcome compared with 20-25 mL/kg/hr of continuous renal replacement therapy, currently considered the standard intensity. However, our study is insufficient to support the use of low-intensity continuous renal replacement therapy, and more studies are needed to confirm our findings.