One- and three-year outcomes in patients treated with intermittent hemodialysis for acute kidney injury: prospective observational multicenter post-hoc FINNAKI study

Intermittent Online Postdilution Hemodiafiltration versus High-Flux Hemodialysis in Non-critical Acute Kidney Injury: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

The preferential use of convective modes of hemodialysis (HD) for targeting hyper-cytokinemia state in sepsis-related acute kidney injury (AKI) has been questioned for its efficacy. Several studies have used predilution hemodiafiltration (HDF) in critically ill AKI patients with mixed results. In this study, we compared intermittent online postdilution HDF with the standard high-flux (HF) intermittent HD in non-critically ill patients with community-acquired (CA) AKI. In this pilot study, stable patients with CA AKI and systemic inflammatory response syndrome were included and given either postdilution online-HDF (OL-HDF) or standard HF HD outside intensive care units. The primary objectives were to assess the feasibility of conducting the study at a larger scale and to detect the differential impact of convective clearance on the rates of independence from dialysis at discharge or after 30 days. Plasma cytokine clearance was assessed as a secondary objective. Eighty consecutive AKI patients were randomized to receive dialysis in one of the treatment arms after fulfilling the eligibility criteria. The baseline parameters of clinical severity, etiology, and indications of dialysis, plus the baseline plasma cytokine profiles, were comparable. Moreover, 83% in the control arm and 71.1% in the intervention arm became independent from dialysis at discharge or at 30 days (P = 0.189). No survival advantage of postdilution OL-HDF was observed (P >0.05). Similar plasma cytokine clearance levels were noted in both arms. The current study confirms the feasibility; however, it does not support the preferential use of postdilution OL-HDF over HF-HD in non-critical patients.

The Impact of Clinical Presentation on Survival in Patients Requiring Hemodialysis Catheters for Acute and Unplanned Dialysis: A Prospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Most studies addressing hemodialysis initiation with a dialysis catheter focus on patients entering maintenance dialysis programs and exclude other patients, such as those with acute kidney injury (AKI), making interpretation and application of the results difficult for clinicians managing patients at the time of dialysis commencement.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the survival of all patients requiring a catheter for hemodialysis access according to the nature of clinical presentation.

DESIGN

Prospective observational.

SETTING

An Australian tertiary renal unit.

PATIENTS

All patients requiring a central venous catheter (CVC) for hemodialysis access between 2005 and 2015.

MEASUREMENTS

Baseline comorbidities, demographics, and nature of clinical presentation. Data regarding each episode of dialysis access insufficiency and each CVC were collected. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality.

METHODS

Patients were classified into 1 of 3 groups based on physician assessment at the time of presentation: patients believed to have AKI with expected renal recovery (AKI), patients considered to be entering the maintenance dialysis program without a functioning dialysis access (Maintenance Dialysis), patients unable to perform peritoneal dialysis, or use their existing hemodialysis access (Access Failure). Time-split multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to compare survival between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 557 eligible patients had complete prospective data regarding CVC use and were included in the analyses. The majority of patients were in the AKI (246/557, 44%) and Maintenance Dialysis groups (182/557, 33%) compared with the Access Failure group (129/557, 23%). During a median follow-up of 3 years, 302 (54%) of the 557 patients died. Following adjustment, risk of all-cause mortality was higher in the AKI group (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31-3.60, P = .001) during the first 2 years after catheter insertion and lower in years 2 to 4 (HR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.88, P = .02) than in the reference Maintenance Dialysis group. No difference in mortality risk between the Access Failure and reference group was found.

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study. Possible residual confounding owing to the observational study design.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients requiring acute or unplanned hemodialysis experience high mortality, and the nature of clinical presentation does influence outcomes. Most notable is the greater early mortality experienced by patients with AKI compared to other patient groups. Prospective definition of the nature of unplanned dialysis initiation is important to accurately measure and improve outcomes in this high-risk patient population.

HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEE APPROVAL NUMBER

CH62/6/2017-042.