Renalguard system: A dedicated device to prevent contrast-induced acute kidney injury

Hydration to Prevent Contrast-Associated Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Angiography

Administration of fluid (oral and intravenous) is the cornerstone of prevention of contrast-associated acute kidney injury in the cardiac environment. Intravenous saline is the preferred fluid. The amount, timing, and duration of therapy are discussed. A key determinant of the benefit may be the rate of urine output stimulated by the therapy. Approaches using hemodynamic-guided rates of fluid administration and novel techniques to generate large urine outputs while maintaining fluid balance are highlighted.

Management of patients at risk of acute kidney injury

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a multifaceted syndrome that occurs in different settings. The course of AKI can be variable, from single hit and complete recovery, to multiple hits resulting in end-stage renal disease. No interventions to improve outcomes of established AKI have yet been developed, so prevention and early diagnosis are key. Awareness campaigns and education for health-care professionals on diagnosis and management of AKI-with attention to avoidance of volume depletion, hypotension, and nephrotoxic interventions-coupled with electronic early warning systems where available can improve outcomes. Biomarker-based strategies have not shown improvements in outcome. Fluid management should aim for early, rapid restoration of circulatory volume, but should be more limited after the first 24-48 h to avoid volume overload. Use of balanced crystalloid solutions versus normal saline remains controversial. Renal replacement therapy should only be started on the basis of hard criteria, but should not be delayed when criteria are met. On the basis of recent evidence, the risk of contrast-induced AKI might be overestimated for many conditions.

Prevention of Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury by Furosemide With Matched Hydration in Patients Undergoing Interventional Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this meta-analysis of randomized trials was to evaluate if the administration of furosemide with matched hydration using the RenalGuard System reduces contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) in patients undergoing interventional procedures.

BACKGROUND

CI-AKI is a serious complication following angiographic procedures and a powerful predictor of unfavorable early and long-term outcomes.

METHODS

Online databases were searched up to October 1, 2016, for randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was the incidence of CI-AKI, and the secondary outcomes were need for renal replacement therapy, mortality, stroke, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of four trials (n = 698) published between 2011 and 2016 were included in the analysis and included patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures and transcatheter aortic valve replacement. RenalGuard therapy was associated with a lower incidence of CI-AKI compared with control treatment (27 of 348 [7.76%] patients vs. 75 of 350 [21.43%] patients; odds ratio [OR]: 0.31; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19 to 0.50; I2 = 4%; p < 0.00001) and with a lower need for renal replacement therapy (2 of 346 [0.58%] patients vs. 12 of 348 [3.45%] patients; OR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.76; I2 = 0%; p = 0.02). No major adverse events occurred in patients undergoing RenalGuard therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The main finding of this meta-analysis is that furosemide with matched hydration by the RenalGuard System may reduce the incidence of CI-AKI in high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or transcatheter aortic valve replacement. However, further independent high-quality randomized trials should elucidate the effectiveness and safety of this prophylactic intervention in interventional cardiology.

Automated Fluid Management for Treatment of Rhabdomyolysis

Purpose. Fluid therapy aimed at increasing urine output is a commonly employed strategy to prevent acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill patients with rhabdomyolysis. Automated fluid management has the potential to optimise urine output while avoiding fluid accumulation in rhabdomyolysis patients. Methods. In a single centre clinical service evaluation we compared a convenience sample of critically ill adults with rhabdomyolysis treated with automated fluid management using the RenalGuard® device to patients managed with manual fluid adjustment following our standard rhabdomyolysis protocol. Primary outcome was number of hours with urine output >2 mL/kg during first 48 h of therapy. Results. Eight patients treated with RenalGuard were compared to 28 patients treated with manual fluid management. Number of hours of target urine output was greater in the RenalGuard versus the Standard group (176/312 (56.4%) versus 534/1305 (40.9%); p < 0.01). Urine output was significantly higher in the first 24 h in the RenalGuard group (median (IQR) 4033 mL (3682–7363) versus 2913 mL (2263–4188 mL); p < 0.01). Fluid balance, electrolyte, diuretics, and bicarbonate use were comparable between groups. Conclusions. Automated fluid management resulted in a higher urine output more quickly in the treatment of rhabdomyolysis. Further research is needed to analyse the effect of diuresis-matched hydration for the prevention of AKI in rhabdomyolysis.

Usefulness of urine output criteria for early detection of acute kidney injury after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Previous studies demonstrated that acute kidney injury (AKI) following transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is frequent and associated with adverse outcomes. However, these studies only applied the serum creatinine (sCr) criteria while ignoring the urine output criteria. We hypothesized that adding the urine output criteria might contribute to an earlier diagnosis of AKI.

METHODS

We included 143 patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent transfemoral TAVI between December 2012 and April 2014. Urine output was assessed hourly for at least 24 h following TAVI, and sCr was assessed at least daily until discharge. Based on the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2), AKI was determined using both sCr and urine output criteria. We compared the incidence of AKI and time to AKI diagnosis based on these two methods.

RESULTS

The mean age was 81 ± 6 years (range 61-94) and 56% were male. AKI occurred in 27 (19%) patients, 13 (9%) of whom had AKI defined by sCr criteria. Twenty (14%) patients had AKI defined by urine output criteria, only 6 of whom had AKI also defined by sCr criteria. The use of urine output criteria resulted in earlier identification of AKI (18 ± 4 vs. 64 ± 57 h, p = 0.02) and was associated with lower sCr elevation in patients having AKI defined by only urine output criteria (0.03 ± 0.12 vs. 0.37 ± 0.06 mg/dl, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The use of the VARC-2 urine output criteria significantly increased the incidence of AKI and shortened the time to AKI diagnosis.

Prophylaxis of contrast-induced nephrotoxicity

Contrast-induced nephrotoxicity (CIN) is a form of acute kidney injury that follows intravascular contrast media exposure. CIN may be preventable because its risk factors are well established and the timing of renal insult is commonly known in advance. However, contrast-induced nephrotoxicity is still the third leading cause of iatrogenic renal failure. This important complication accounts up to 10% of acute renal failure cases in hospitalized patients and it is associated with increased short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. Prolonged hospitalization follows and overall increases healthcare resource utilization. This paper will discuss the various prophylactic procedures tested in clinical trials.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in nonagenarians: pros and cons

Percutaneous coronary intervention is a mainstay in the management of symptomatic or high-risk coronary artery disease. The bulk of clinical evidence and experience underlying this fact relies, however, on relatively young patients. Indeed, few data of very limited quality are available which adequately define the risk-benefit and cost-benefit profile of coronary angioplasty and stenting in very old subjects, such as those of 90 years of age or older (i.e., nonagenarians). The aim of this review is to provide a concise, yet practical, synthesis of the available evidence on percutaneous coronary revascularization in the very elderly. The main arguments elaborated upon are to what extent we can extrapolate findings from studies including younger patients to nonagenarians, whether we should provide higher priority to prognosis or quality of life in such patients, and whether we can afford to allocate vast resources to care for such subjects in an era of financial constraints. Our review of 18 studies and 1082 patients suggest that percutaneous coronary intervention is feasible and associated with acceptable short- and long-term results in this population, which is nonetheless fraught with a high mortality risk irrespective of the revascularization procedure. Accordingly, the pros and cons of percutaneous coronary intervention should be carefully weighed when considering this treatment in nonagenarians.