An Jung Nam, Oh Hyung Jung, Oh Sohee, Rhee Harin, Seong Eun Young, Baek Seon Ha, Ahn Shin Young, Cho Jang-Hee, Lee Jung Pyo, Kim Dong Ki, Ryu Dong-Ryeol, Ahn Soyeon, Kim Sejoong
Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Republic of Korea.
Department of Nephrology, Sheikh Khalifa Specialty Hospital, Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates.
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2024 Dec 1;19(12):1527-1536. doi: 10.2215/CJN.0000000000000557. Epub 2024 Sep 12.
This study, the sole randomized trial of its kind, proposes guidelines for fluid balance management in continuous KRT (CKRT) patients using bioimpedance. Despite this, bioimpedance analysis–guided volume management did not influence the proportion of patients achieving estimated euvolemia at 7 days into CKRT. Further investigation is needed to assess whether bioimpedance analysis guidance can facilitate rapid fluid removal in the early phase of CKRT for patients with AKI.
Ultrafiltration with continuous KRT (CKRT) can be used to manage fluid balance in critically ill patients with AKI. We aimed to assess whether bioimpedance analysis (BIA)–guided volume management was more efficacious than conventional management for achieving estimated euvolemia (e-euvolemia) in CKRT-treated patients.
In a multicenter randomized controlled trial from July 2017 to July 2020, the patients with AKI requiring CKRT were eligible if the weight at the start of CKRT had increased by ≥5% compared with the weight at the time of admission or total body water (TBW)/height (H) ≥13 L/m. We randomly assigned 208 patients to the control (conventional fluid management; =103) and intervention groups (BIA-guided fluid management; =105). The primary outcome was the proportion of attaining e-euvolemia 7 days postrandomization. E-euvolemia was defined as the difference between TBW/H D and D was <−2.1 L/m, or when TBW/H measured on D was <13 L/m. The 28-, 60-, and 90-day mortality rate were secondary outcomes.
The primary outcome occurred in 34 patients in the intervention group and 27 in the control group (47% versus 41%; = 0.50). The mean value of TBW/H measured on D was the same at 13.9 L/m in both groups. The differences between TBW/H D and D were −1.13 L/m in the intervention group and −1.08 L/m in the control group ( = 0.84). Patients in the intervention group had a significantly higher proportion of reaching e-euvolemia on D than those in the control group (13% versus 4%, = 0.02). Adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups.
BIA-guided volume management did not affect the proportion of reaching the e-euvolemia at 7 days of the start of CKRT.
: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03330626 (Registered on November 6, 2017; seven study participants were retrospectively registered; nonetheless, Institutional Review Board approval of each institution was completed before study participant registration).
本研究是同类唯一的随机试验,提出了使用生物阻抗对持续肾脏替代治疗(CKRT)患者进行液体平衡管理的指南。尽管如此,生物阻抗分析指导下的容量管理并未影响CKRT开始7天时达到估计正常容量状态的患者比例。需要进一步研究以评估生物阻抗分析指导是否能促进急性肾损伤(AKI)患者在CKRT早期阶段快速清除液体。
采用CKRT进行超滤可用于管理AKI危重症患者的液体平衡。我们旨在评估生物阻抗分析(BIA)指导下的容量管理在CKRT治疗的患者中实现估计正常容量状态(e-正常容量状态)方面是否比传统管理更有效。
在一项2017年7月至2020年7月的多中心随机对照试验中,若CKRT开始时的体重较入院时增加≥5%或总体水(TBW)/身高(H)≥13L/m,则需要进行CKRT的AKI患者符合入选条件。我们将208例患者随机分为对照组(传统液体管理;n = 103)和干预组(BIA指导的液体管理;n = 105)。主要结局是随机分组后7天达到e-正常容量状态的患者比例。e-正常容量状态定义为TBW/H与D的差值且D <−2.1L/m,或D时测量的TBW/H <13L/m。28天、60天和90天死亡率为次要结局。
干预组34例患者和对照组27例患者出现主要结局(47%对41%;P = 0.50)。两组在D时测量的TBW/H平均值相同,均为13.9L/m。干预组TBW/H与D的差值为−1.13L/m,对照组为−(1.08L/m)(P = 0.84)。干预组患者在D时达到e-正常容量状态的比例显著高于对照组(13%对4%,P = 0.02)。两组不良事件无显著差异。
BIA指导下的容量管理在CKRT开始7天时并未影响达到e-正常容量状态的患者比例。
ClinicalTrials.gov,ID:NCT03330626(于2017年11月6日注册;7名研究参与者进行了回顾性注册;尽管如此,各机构的机构审查委员会批准在研究参与者注册前已完成)。