Improving the Quality and Efficiency of Conventional In-center Hemodialysis

Intensive Care Unit Volume of Sepsis Patients Does Not Affect Mortality: Results of a Nationwide Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

There is little research evaluating outcomes from sepsis in intensive care units (ICUs) with lower sepsis patient volumes as compared to ICUs with higher sepsis patient volumes. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of septic patients admitted to ICUs with different sepsis patient volumes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included all patients from the eICU-CRD database admitted for the management of sepsis with blood lactate ≥ 2mmol/L within 24 hours of admission. Our primary outcome was ICU mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital mortality, 30-day ventilator free days, and initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT). ICUs were grouped in quartiles based on the number of septic patients treated at each unit.

RESULTS

10,716 patients were included in our analysis; 272 (2.5%) in low sepsis volume ICUs, 1,078 (10.1%) in medium-low sepsis volume ICUs, 2,608 (24.3%) in medium-high sepsis volume ICUs, and 6,758 (63.1%) in high sepsis volume ICUs. On multivariable analyses, no significant differences were documented regarding ICU and hospital mortality, and ventilator days in patients treated in lower versus higher sepsis volume ICUs. Patients treated at lower sepsis volume ICUs had lower rates of RRT initiation as compared to high volume units (medium-high vs. high: OR = 0.78, 95%CI = 0.66-0.91, P-value = 0.002 and medium-low vs. high: OR = 0.57, 95%CI = 0.44-0.73, P-value < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The previously described volume-outcome association in septic patients was not identified in an intensive care setting.

Prescribing Hemodialysis or Hemodiafiltration: When One Size Does Not Fit All the Proposal of a Personalized Approach Based on Comorbidity and Nutritional Status

There is no simple way to prescribe hemodialysis. Changes in the dialysis population, improvements in dialysis techniques, and different attitudes towards the initiation of dialysis have influenced treatment goals and, consequently, dialysis prescription. However, in clinical practice prescription of dialysis still often follows a "one size fits all" rule, and there is no agreed distinction between treatment goals for the younger, lower-risk population, and for older, high comorbidity patients. In the younger dialysis population, efficiency is our main goal, as assessed by the demonstrated close relationship between depuration (tested by kinetic adequacy) and survival. In the ageing dialysis population, tolerance is probably a better objective: "good dialysis" should allow the patient to attain a stable metabolic balance with minimal dialysis-related morbidity. We would like therefore to open the discussion on a personalized approach to dialysis prescription, focused on efficiency in younger patients and on tolerance in older ones, based on life expectancy, comorbidity, residual kidney function, and nutritional status, with particular attention placed on elderly, high-comorbidity populations, such as the ones presently treated in most European centers. Prescription of dialysis includes reaching decisions on the following elements: dialysis modality (hemodialysis (HD) or hemodiafiltration (HDF)); type of membrane (permeability, surface); and the frequency and duration of sessions. Blood and dialysate flow, anticoagulation, and reinfusion (in HDF) are also briefly discussed. The approach described in this concept paper was developed considering the following items: nutritional markers and integrated scores (albumin, pre-albumin, cholesterol; body size, Body Mass Index (BMI), Malnutrition Inflammation Score (MIS), and Subjective Global Assessment (SGA)); life expectancy (age, comorbidity (Charlson Index), and dialysis vintage); kinetic goals (Kt/V, normalized protein catabolic rate (n-PCR), calcium phosphate, parathyroid hormone (PTH), beta-2 microglobulin); technical aspects including vascular access (fistula versus catheter, degree of functionality); residual kidney function and weight gain; and dialysis tolerance (intradialytic hypotension, post-dialysis fatigue, and subjective evaluation of the effect of dialysis on quality of life). In the era of personalized medicine, we hope the approach described in this concept paper, which requires validation but has the merit of providing innovation, may be a first step towards raising attention on this issue and will be of help in guiding dialysis choices that exploit the extraordinary potential of the present dialysis "menu".