Drug Dosing in Critically Ill Patients with Acute Kidney Injury and on Renal Replacement Therapy

Treatment of Acute Kidney Injury: A Review of Current Approaches and Emerging Innovations

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complex and life-threatening condition with multifactorial etiologies, ranging from ischemic injury to nephrotoxic exposures. Management is founded on treating the underlying cause of AKI, but supportive care-via fluid management, vasopressor therapy, kidney replacement therapy (KRT), and more-is also crucial. Blood pressure targets are often higher in AKI, and these can be achieved with fluids and vasopressors, some of which may be more kidney-protective than others. Initiation of KRT is controversial, and studies have not consistently demonstrated any benefit to early start dialysis. There are no targeted pharmacotherapies for AKI itself, but some do exist for complications of AKI; additionally, medications become a key aspect of AKI management because changes in renal function and dialysis support can lead to issues with both toxicities and underdosing. This review will cover existing literature on these and other aspects of AKI treatment. Additionally, this review aims to identify gaps and challenges and to offer recommendations for future research and clinical practice.

Prevalence of Augmented Renal Clearance (ARC), Utility of Augmented Renal Clearance Scoring System (ARC score) and Augmented Renal Clearance in Trauma Intensive Care Scoring System (ARCTIC score) in Predicting ARC in the Intensive Care Unit: Proactive Study

Objectives

We aimed to study the prevalence of augmented renal clearance (ARC) and validate the utility of ARC and ARCTIC scores. We also aimed to assess the correlation and agreement between estimated GFR (eGFR-EPI) and 8-hour measured creatinine clearance (8 hr-mCL_cr).

Study design and methodology

This was a prospective, observational study done in the mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) and 90 patients were recruited. 8 hr-mCL_cr, ARC, and ARCTIC scores and eGFR-EPI were calculated for all patients. ARC was said to be present if 8 hr-mCLcr was ≥ 130 mL/min.

Results

Four patients were excluded from the analysis. The prevalence of ARC was 31.4%. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of ARC and ARCTIC scores were found to be 55.6, 84.7, 62.5, 80.6, and 85.2, 67.8, 54.8, and 90.9 respectively. AUROC for ARC and ARCTIC scores were 0.802 and 0.765 respectively. A strong positive correlation and poor agreement were observed between eGFR-EPI and 8 hr-mCL_cr.

Conclusion

The prevalence of ARC was significant and the ARCTIC score showed good potential as a screening tool to predict ARC. Lowering the cut-off of ARC score to ≥5 improved its utility in predicting ARC. Despite its poor agreement with 8 hr-mCL_cr, eGFR-EPI with a cut-off ≥114 mL/min showed utility in predicting ARC.

How to cite this article

Kanna G, Patodia S, Annigeri RA, Ramakrishnan N, Venkataraman R. Prevalence of Augmented Renal Clearance (ARC), Utility of Augmented Renal Clearance Scoring System (ARC score) and Augmented Renal Clearance in Trauma Intensive Care Scoring System (ARCTIC score) in Predicting ARC in the Intensive Care Unit: Proactive Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023;27(6):433-443.

Chronic and End-Stage Kidney Disease in the Neurological Intensive Care Unit

Patients with renal disease have increased rates of admission to the neurological intensive care unit related to overlapping risk factors for renal and cerebrovascular disease as well as unique risks associated with renal dysfunction alone. Management of acute neurological injury in these patients requires individualized attention to diagnostic and management factors as they relate to coagulopathy, disorders of immune function, encephalopathy and renal replacement modalities. Careful consideration of these brain-kidney interactions is necessary to optimize care for this special patient population and improve neurological and renal outcomes.