A clinical, renal and immunological assessment of Surface Modifying Additive Treated (SMART™) cardiopulmonary bypass circuits

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing clotting of extracorporeal circuits during continuous renal replacement therapy

BACKGROUND

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication amongst people who are critically ill, and it is associated with an increased risk of death. For people with severe AKI, continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT), which is delivered over 24 hours, is needed when they become haemodynamically unstable. When CKRT is interrupted due to clotting of the extracorporeal circuit, the delivered dose is decreased and thus leading to undertreatment.

OBJECTIVES

This review assessed the efficacy of non-pharmacological measures to maintain circuit patency in CKRT.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 25 January 2021 which includes records identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (parallel-group and cross-over studies), cluster RCTs and quasi-RCTs that examined non-pharmacological interventions to prevent clotting of extracorporeal circuits during CKRT.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three pairs of review authors independently extracted information including participants, interventions/comparators, outcomes, study methods, and risk of bias. The primary outcomes were circuit lifespan and death due to any cause at day 28. We used a random-effects model to perform quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). We assessed risk of bias in included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 20 studies involving 1143 randomised participants were included in the review. The methodological quality of the included studies was low, mainly due to the unclear randomisation process and blinding of the intervention. We found evidence on the following 11 comparisons: (i) continuous venovenous haemodialysis (CVVHD) versus continuous venovenous haemofiltration (CVVH) or continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration (CVVHDF); (ii) CVVHDF versus CVVH; (iii) higher blood flow (≥ 250 mL/minute) versus standard blood flow (< 250 mL/minute); (iv) AN69 membrane (AN69ST) versus other membranes; (v) pre-dilution versus post-dilution; (vi) a longer catheter (> 20 cm) placing the tip targeting the right atrium versus a shorter catheter (≤ 20 cm) placing the tip in the superior vena cava; (vii) surface-modified double-lumen catheter versus standard double-lumen catheter with identical geometry and flow design; (viii) single-site infusion anticoagulation versus double-site infusion anticoagulation; (ix) flat plate filter versus hollow fibre filter of the same membrane type; (x) a filter with a larger membrane surface area versus a smaller one; and (xi) a filter with more and shorter hollow fibre versus a standard filter of the same membrane type. Circuit lifespan was reported in 9 comparisons. Low certainty evidence indicated that CVVHDF (versus CVVH: MD 10.15 hours, 95% CI 5.15 to 15.15; 1 study, 62 circuits), pre-dilution haemofiltration (versus post-dilution haemofiltration: MD 9.34 hours, 95% CI -2.60 to 21.29; 2 studies, 47 circuits; I² = 13%), placing the tip of a longer catheter targeting the right atrium (versus placing a shorter catheter targeting the tip in the superior vena cava: MD 6.50 hours, 95% CI 1.48 to 11.52; 1 study, 420 circuits), and surface-modified double-lumen catheter (versus standard double-lumen catheter: MD 16.00 hours, 95% CI 13.49 to 18.51; 1 study, 262 circuits) may prolong circuit lifespan. However, higher blood flow may not increase circuit lifespan (versus standard blood flow: MD 0.64, 95% CI -3.37 to 4.64; 2 studies, 499 circuits; I² = 70%). More and shorter hollow fibre filters (versus standard filters: MD -5.87 hours, 95% CI -10.18 to -1.56; 1 study, 6 circuits) may reduce circuit lifespan. Death from any cause was reported in four comparisons We are uncertain whether CVVHDF versus CVVH, CVVHD versus CVVH or CVVHDF, longer versus a shorter catheter, or surface-modified double-lumen catheters versus standard double-lumen catheters reduced death due to any cause, in very low certainty evidence. Recovery of kidney function was reported in three comparisons. We are uncertain whether CVVHDF versus CVVH, CVVHDF versus CVVH, or surface-modified double-lumen catheters versus standard double-lumen catheters increased recovery of kidney function. Vascular access complications were reported in two comparisons. Low certainty evidence indicated using a longer catheter (versus a shorter catheter: RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.74) may reduce vascular access complications, however the use of surface-modified double lumen catheters versus standard double-lumen catheters may make little or no difference to vascular access complications.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of CVVHDF as compared with CVVH, pre-dilution haemofiltration, a longer catheter, and surface-modified double-lumen catheter may be useful in prolonging the circuit lifespan, while higher blood flow and more and shorter hollow fibre filter may reduce circuit life. The Overall, the certainty of evidence was assessed to be low to very low due to the small sample size of the included studies. Data from future rigorous and transparent research are much needed in order to fully understand the effects of non-pharmacological interventions in preventing circuit coagulation amongst people with AKI receiving CKRT.

Currently available biomaterials for use in cardiopulmonary bypass

Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) represents one of the most important technical innovations in healthcare history, yet the systemic responses to CPB remain a fundamentally unresolved problem. Study of the blood-biomaterial interaction and development of biocompatible materials is intimately related to efforts to optimize patient outcome following CPB. This article reviews the design innovations in biomaterial surfaces that have been introduced into clinical practice in an attempt to ameliorate the detrimental consequences of CPB, contrasting the actual clinical improvements and patient benefits achieved against those predicted on the basis of theory and in vitro testing. Some discussion of the underlying mechanisms of action as presently understood is provided and the current limitations of biomaterial-dependent strategies to improve outcome following CPB are addressed.

Consensus statement: minimal criteria for reporting the systemic inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass

The lack of established cause and effect between putative mediators of inflammation and adverse clinical outcomes has been responsible for many failed anti-inflammatory interventions in cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Candidate interventions that impress in preclinical trials by suppressing a given inflammation marker might fail at the clinical trial stage because the marker of interest is not linked causally to an adverse outcome. Alternatively, there exist examples in which pharmaceutical agents or other interventions improve clinical outcomes but for which we are uncertain of any antiinflammatory mechanism. The Outcomes consensus panel made 3 recommendations in 2009 for the conduct of clinical trials focused on the systemic inflammatory response. This panel was tasked with updating, as well as simplifying, a previous consensus statement. The present recommendations for investigators are the following: (1) Measure at least 1 inflammation marker, defined in broad terms; (2) measure at least 1clinical end point, drawn from a list of practical yet clinically meaningful end points suggested by the consensus panel; and(3) report a core set of CPB and perfusion criteria that maybe linked to outcomes. Our collective belief is that adhering to these simple consensus recommendations will help define the influence of CPB practice on the systemic inflammatory response, advance our understanding of causal inflammatory mechanisms, and standardize the reporting of research findings in the peer-reviewed literature.

Optimal Versus Suboptimal Perfusion During Cardiopulmonary Bypass and the Inflammatory Response

Despite major improvements in perfusion techniques over the past 50 years, it is still not possible to formulate a clear definition of what is meant by optimal perfusion. In part this is due to the lack of sufficient evidence-based data and in part because of the complex pathophysiology that takes place during cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. To find an answer we need to understand the exact mechanism of the inflammatory reaction triggered by the cardiopulmonary bypass. However, it is clear that further improvement of the cardiopulmonary bypass components alone will be sufficient. Only a combined strategy can further improve cardiopulmonary bypass—related morbidity and mortality. Such a combined strategy will embrace perfusion techniques as well as a pharmacological approach. It will also require a continuous monitoring of the microcirculation. The latter will not only allow to rapidly sense changes in the quality of perfusion but, even more important, also make it possible to intervene at the moment of deterioration. Recent research shows that such an approach has positive an impact on cardiopulmonary bypass—related morbidity postoperatively.