Renal complications and subsequent mortality in acute critically ill patients without pre-existing renal disease

Comparative analysis of two-hour creatinine clearance and the C-G formula for renal function assessment in critically ill patients

Objective and rationale

To investigate if the 2-h creatinine clearance (Ccr2) provides a more precise and timely assessment of renal function in critically ill patients compared to the Cockcroft-Gault formula (CrC-G).

Materials and methods

This cohort study incorporated 74 patients who were hospitalized for more than 48 h in the Intensive Care Unit over 6 months. A 24-h urine collection protocol was observed, and concurrently, 316 2-h urine specimens were obtained. Then calculated and analyzed the correlation and consistency between Ccr2, CrC-G, and 24-h creatinine clearance (Ccr24) values. The rates of change in Ccr2(ΔCcr2) and CrC-G(ΔCrC-G) were compared over two consecutive samples.

Results

The R-values of Ccr2 and Ccr24 in the early, middle and late 24 h were 0.640, 0.886 and 0.854 (P < 0.001), with biases of -2.1, 1.7, and 6.3 ml/min/1.73 m2, respectively. Meanwhile, the R-values for CrC-G and Ccr24 at these time points were 0.618, 0.822, and 0.828(P < 0.001), with biases of -14.0, -5.2, and -1.8 ml/min/1.73 m2, respectively. For patients with Ccr24≥60 ml/min/1.73 m2, the R-value of Ccr2 and Ccr24 during the middle 2 h was 0.852(P < 0.001), while the R-values for CrC-G and Ccr24 were 0.763(P < 0.001), with biases of -2.3 ml/min/1.73 m2 and -14.2 ml/min/1.73 m2 respectively. For the group with Ccr24 ≥ 120 ml/min/1.73 m2 (n = 72), both Ccr2 and Ccr24 displayed a statistically significant elevation compared to CrC-G (P < 0.001), yet no significant difference was observed between Ccr2 and Ccr24 (P = 0.289). Out of 50 patients, 46(92 %) experienced a ΔCcr2≥20 % at least once, compared to 20(40 %) with a ΔCrC-G≥20 %(P < 0.001). 25(50 %) with a ΔCcr2≥50 %, compared to 3(6 %) with a ΔCrC-G≥50 %(P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Ccr2 demonstrates a more accurate and more timely indicator of renal function in critically ill patients than CrC-G.

New and Progressive Medical Conditions After Pediatric Sepsis Hospitalization Requiring Critical Care

Importance

Children commonly experience physical, cognitive, or emotional sequelae after sepsis. However, little is known about the development or progression of medical conditions after pediatric sepsis.

Objective

To quantify the development and progression of 4 common conditions in the 6 months after sepsis and to assess whether they differed after hospitalization for sepsis vs nonsepsis among critically ill children.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study of 101 511 children (<19 years) with sepsis or nonsepsis hospitalization used a national administrative claims database (January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2018). Data management and analysis were conducted from April 1, 2020, to July 7, 2022.

Exposures

Intensive care unit hospitalization for sepsis vs all-cause intensive care unit hospitalizations, excluding sepsis.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary outcomes were the development of 4 target conditions (chronic respiratory failure, seizure disorder, supplemental nutritional dependence, and chronic kidney disease) within 6 months of hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were the progression of the 4 target conditions among children with the condition before hospitalization. Outcomes were identified via diagnostic and procedural codes, durable medical equipment codes, and prescription medications. Differences in the development and the progression of conditions between pediatric patients with sepsis and pediatric patients with nonsepsis who survived intensive care unit hospitalization were assessed using logistic regression with matching weights.

Results

A total of 5150 survivors of pediatric sepsis and 96 361 survivors of nonsepsis intensive care unit hospitalizations were identified; 2593 (50.3%) were female. The median age was 9.5 years (IQR, 3-15 years) in the sepsis cohort and 7 years (IQR, 2-13 years) in the nonsepsis cohort. Of the 5150 sepsis survivors, 670 (13.0%) developed a new target condition, and 385 of 1834 (21.0%) with a preexisting target condition had disease progression. A total of 998 of the 5150 survivors (19.4%) had development and/or progression of at least 1 condition. New conditions were more common among sepsis vs nonsepsis hospitalizations (new chronic respiratory failure: 4.6% vs 1.9%; odds ratio [OR], 2.54 [95% CI, 2.19-2.94]; new supplemental nutritional dependence: 7.9% vs 2.7%; OR, 3.17 [95% CI, 2.80-3.59]; and new chronic kidney disease: 1.1% vs 0.6%; OR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.25-2.19]). New seizure disorder was less common (4.6% vs 6.0%; OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.66-0.89]). Progressive supplemental nutritional dependence was more common (1.5% vs 0.5%; OR, 2.95 [95% CI, 1.60-5.42]), progressive epilepsy was less common (33.7% vs 40.6%; OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.65-0.86]), and progressive respiratory failure (4.4% vs 3.3%; OR, 1.35 [95% CI, 0.89-2.04]) and progressive chronic kidney disease (7.9% vs 9.2%; OR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.18-3.91]) were similar among survivors of sepsis vs nonsepsis admitted to an intensive care unit.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this national cohort of critically ill children who survived sepsis, 1 in 5 developed or had progression of a condition of interest after sepsis hospitalization, suggesting survivors of pediatric sepsis may benefit from structured follow-up to identify and treat new or worsening medical comorbid conditions.

Use of matching methods in observational studies with critical patients and renal outcomes. Scoping review

Introduction: The use of matching techniques in observational studies has been increasing and is not always used appropriately. Clinical experiments are not always feasible in critical patients with renal outcomes, and observational studies are an important alternative. Objective: Through a scoping review, determine the available evidence on the use of matching methods in studies involving critically ill patients and assessing renal outcomes. Methods: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were used to identify articles published between 1992 and 2020 up to week 10, which studied different exposures in the critically ill patient with renal outcomes and used propensity matching methods. Results: Most publications are cohort studies 94 (94. 9 %), five studies (5. 1 %) were cross-sectional. The main pharmacological intervention was the use of antibiotics in seven studies (7. 1%) and the main risk factor studied was renal injury prior to ICU admission in 10 studies (10. 1%). The balance between the baseline characteristics assessed by standardized means, in only 28 studies (28. 2%). Most studies 95 (96 %) used logistic regression to calculate the propensity index. Conclusion: Major inconsistencies were observed in the use of methods and in the reporting of findings. A summary is made of the aspects to be considered in the use of the methods and reporting of the findings with the matching by propensity index.