Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundAcute kidney injury is the most frequent complication in patients with septic shock and is an independent risk factor for death. Although renal-replacement therapy is the standard of care for severe acute kidney injury, the ideal time for initiation remains controversial.MethodsIn a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients with early-stage septic shock who had severe acute kidney injury at the failure stage of the risk, injury, failure, loss, and end-stage kidney disease (RIFLE) classification system but without life-threatening complications related to acute kidney injury to receive renal-replacement therapy either within 12 hours after documentation of failure-stage acute kidney injury (early strategy) or after a delay of 48 hours if renal recovery had not occurred (delayed strategy). The failure stage of the RIFLE classification system is characterized by a serum creatinine level 3 times the baseline level (or ≥4 mg per deciliter with a rapid increase of ≥0.5 mg per deciliter), urine output less than 0.3 ml per kilogram of body weight per hour for 24 hours or longer, or anuria for at least 12 hours. The primary outcome was death at 90 days.ResultsThe trial was stopped early for futility after the second planned interim analysis. A total of 488 patients underwent randomization; there were no significant between-group differences in the characteristics at baseline. Among the 477 patients for whom follow-up data at 90 days were available, 58% of the patients in the early-strategy group (138 of 239 patients) and 54% in the delayed-strategy group (128 of 238 patients) had died (P=0.38). In the delayed-strategy group, 38% (93 patients) did not receive renal-replacement therapy. Criteria for emergency renal-replacement therapy were met in 17% of the patients in the delayed-strategy group (41 patients).ConclusionsAmong patients with septic shock who had severe acute kidney injury, there was no significant difference in overall mortality at 90 days between patients who were assigned to an early strategy for the initiation of renal-replacement therapy and those who were assigned to a delayed strategy. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; IDEAL-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682590.)

The timing of renal replacement therapy (RRT) for severe acute kidney injury is highly debated when no life-threatening complications are present. We assessed whether a strategy of delayed versus early RRT initiation affects 28-day survival in critically ill adults with severe acute kidney injury. In this systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised trials published from April 1, 2008, to Dec 20, 2019, that compared delayed and early RRT initiation strategies in patients with severe acute kidney injury. Trials were eligible for inclusion if they included critically ill patients aged 18 years or older with acute kidney injury (defined as a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes [KDIGO] acute kidney injury stage 2 or 3, or, where KDIGO was unavailable, a renal Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 3 or higher). We contacted the principal investigator of each eligible trial to request individual patient data. From the included trials, any patients without acute kidney injury or who were not randomly allocated were not included in the individual patient data meta-analysis. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at day 28 after randomisation. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019125025). Among the 1031 studies identified, one study that met the eligibility criteria was excluded because the recruitment period was not recent enough, and ten (including 2143 patients) were included in the analysis. Individual patient data were available for nine studies (2083 patients), from which 1879 patients had severe acute kidney injury and were randomly allocated: 946 (50%) to the delayed RRT group and 933 (50%) to the early RRT group. 390 (42%) of 929 patients allocated to the delayed RRT group and who had available data did not receive RRT. The proportion of patients who died by day 28 did not significantly differ between the delayed RRT group (366 [44%] of 837) and the early RRT group (355 [43%] of 827; risk ratio 1·01 [95% CI 0·91 to 1·13], p=0·80), corresponding to an overall risk difference of 0·01 (95% CI −0·04 to 0·06). There was no heterogeneity across studies (I2=0%; τ2=0), and most studies had a low risk of bias. The timing of RRT initiation does not affect survival in critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury in the absence of urgent indications for RRT. Delaying RRT initiation, with close patient monitoring, might lead to a reduced use of RRT, thereby saving health resources. None.

IntroductionSepsis-associated acute kidney injury is common in intensive care and is linked to high morbidity and mortality, yet no specific therapy exists beyond supportive care. Excess circulating labile iron contributes to oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction and cell death via ferroptosis. We hypothesise that targeted removal of labile iron during dialysis may reduce this pathogenic process. This study will evaluate the performance and safety of adding a novel iron chelator named MEX-CD1 (Metal EXtraction - Chitosan DOTAGA 1) to dialysate during continuous veno-venous haemodialysis (CVVHD) in critically ill patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury.Methods and analysisThis is a single-centre, randomised, open-label, crossover phase I–II pilot study in the intensive care unit of Nîmes University Hospital, France. 14 adult patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy will receive two consecutive 24-hour CVVHD sessions: one with standard dialysate and one with dialysate supplemented with MEX-CD1 at 50 mg/L. Each patient serves as their own control. The primary outcome is the iron concentration in the effluent to measure iron removal performance. Secondary outcomes include plasma iron clearance, trace element loss, biomarkers of oxidative stress and inflammation, and safety outcomes monitored up to 28 days. Statistical analyses will use paired tests and mixed linear regression models.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been obtained from the Comité de Protection des Personnes (no. 25.01220.000448) and the French National Agency for Safety of Drugs and Medical Devices (no. 2024-A01530-47). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Trial registration numberNCT07236463.

Background One of the most dreaded complications of septic shock is acute kidney injury. It occurs in around 50% of patients, with a mortality rate of about 60% at 3 months. There is no consensus on the optimal time to initiate renal replacement therapy. Retrospective and observational studies suggest that early implementation of renal replacement therapy could improve the prognosis for these patients. Methods/design This protocol summarizes the rationale and design of a randomized, controlled, multicenter trial investigating the effect of early versus delayed renal replacement therapy in patients with severe acute kidney injury in early septic shock. In total, 864 critically ill adults with septic shock and evidence of acute kidney injury, defined as the failure stage of the RIFLE classification, will be enrolled. The primary outcome is mortality at 90 days. Secondary outcomes include safety, number of days free of mechanical ventilation, number of days free of renal replacement therapy, intensive care length of stay, in-hospital length of stay, quality of life as evaluated by the EQ-5D and renal replacement therapy dependence at hospital discharge. The primary analysis will be intention to treat. Recruitment started in March 2012 and will be completed by March 2015. Discussion This protocol for a randomized controlled study investigating the impact of the timing of renal replacement therapy initiation should provide an answer to a key question for the management of patients with acute kidney injury in the context of septic shock, for whom the mortality rate remains close to 60% despite improved understanding of physiopathology and recent therapeutic advances. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01682590 , registered on 10 September 2012.

Pneumonia may involve methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), with elevated rates of antibiotics failure. The present study aimed to assess the effect of statins given prior to pneumonia development. Spontaneously breathing (SB) or mechanically ventilated (MV) rabbits with pneumonia received atorvastatin alone, linezolid (LNZ) alone, or a combination of both (n = 5 in each group). Spontaneously breathing and MV untreated infected animals (n = 11 in each group), as well as uninfected animals (n = 5 in each group) were used as controls. Microbiological features and inflammation were evaluated. Data are presented as medians (interquartile range). Linezolid alone tended to reduce pulmonary MRSA load in both SB and MV rabbits, but failed to prevent bacteremia (59%) in the latter. Linezolid alone dampened TNF-α lung production in both SB and MV rabbits (e.g., 2226 [789] vs. 11478 [10251] pg/g; p = 0.022). Statins alone did the same in both SB and MV animals (e.g., 2040 [133]; p = 0.016), and dampened systemic inflammation in the latter, possibly through TLR2 down-regulation within the lung. However, the combination of LNZ and statin led to an increased rate of bacteremia in MV animals up to 75%. Statins provide an anti-inflammatory effect in rabbits with MRSA pneumonia, especially in MV ones. However, dampening the systemic inflammatory response with statins could impede blood defenses against MRSA.

To the Editor: The trial conducted by Barbar et al. (Oct. 11 issue) 1 showed no significant difference in mortality between an early strategy and a delayed strategy for renal-replacement therapy in patients with acute kidney injury and sepsis. The trial did not include patients with acute kidney injury who fulfilled the criteria for emergency renal-replacement therapy before randomization. However, 17% of the patients (41 of 238) in the delayed-strategy group ultimately received emergency renal-replacement therapy. Indeed, although some patients underwent randomization at the failure stage of the risk, injury, failure, loss, and end-stage kidney disease (RIFLE) classification, their fluid and . . .

Background Trials comparing early and delayed strategies of renal replacement therapy in patients with severe acute kidney injury may have missed differences in survival as a result of mixing together patients at heterogeneous levels of risks. Our aim was to evaluate the heterogeneity of treatment effect on 60-day mortality from an early vs a delayed strategy across levels of risk for renal replacement therapy initiation under a delayed strategy. Methods We used data from the AKIKI, and IDEAL-ICU randomized controlled trials to develop a multivariable logistic regression model for renal replacement therapy initiation within 48 h after allocation to a delayed strategy. We then used an interaction with spline terms in a Cox model to estimate treatment effects across the predicted risks of RRT initiation. Results We analyzed data from 1107 patients (619 and 488 in the AKIKI and IDEAL-ICU trial respectively). In the pooled sample, we found evidence for heterogeneous treatment effects ( P = 0.023). Patients at an intermediate-high risk of renal replacement therapy initiation within 48 h may have benefited from an early strategy (absolute risk difference, − 14%; 95% confidence interval, − 27% to − 1%). For other patients, we found no evidence of benefit from an early strategy of renal replacement therapy initiation but a trend for harm (absolute risk difference, 8%; 95% confidence interval, − 5% to 21% in patients at intermediate-low risk). Conclusions We have identified a clinically sound heterogeneity of treatment effect of an early vs a delayed strategy of renal replacement therapy initiation that may reflect varying degrees of kidney demand-capacity mismatch.

Background In septic shock, the classic fluid resuscitation strategy can lead to a potentially harmful positive fluid balance. This multicenter, randomized, single-blind, parallel, controlled pilot study assessed the effectiveness of a restrictive fluid strategy aiming to limit daily volume. Methods Patients 18–85 years’ old admitted to the ICU department of three French hospitals were eligible for inclusion if they had septic shock and were in the first 24 h of vasopressor infusion. Exclusion criteria were acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy, end stage chronic kidney disease, and severe malnutrition. Patients were electronically randomized 1:1 to either an optimized fluid restriction (reducing fluid intake as much as possible in terms of maintenance fluids and fluids for drug dilution during the first 7 days) or standard fluid strategy. The primary outcome was cumulative fluid balance (ml/kg) in the first 5 days. Patients and statisticians were blinded to group arm, but not clinicians. Results Between September 2021 and February 2023, 1201 patients were screened and 50 included, with two in the control group withdrawing, thus 48 patients were analyzed (24 in each group). In the first 5 days, the optimized restrictive strategy and control groups received 89.7 (IQR 35; 128.9) and 114.3 (IQR 78.8; 168.5) ml/kg of fluid, respectively (mean difference: 35.9 ml/kg [0.0; 71.8], p  = 0.0506). After 5 days, the median cumulative fluid balance was 6.9 (IQR − 13.7; 52.1) and 35.0 (IQR − 7.9; 40.2) ml/kg in the optimized restrictive strategy and control groups, respectively (absolute difference 13.2 [95%CI − 15.2; 41.6], p  = 0.42). After 28 days, mortality and the numbers of days alive without life support were similar between groups. The main adverse events were severe hypernatremia in 1 and 2 patients in the fluid restriction strategy and control groups, respectively, and acute kidney injury KDIGO 3 in 4 and 7 patients in the fluid restriction strategy and control groups, respectively. Conclusions In ICU patients with septic shock, an optimized restrictive fluid strategy targeting hidden fluid intakes did not reduce the overall fluid balance at day 5. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04947904, registered on 1 July 2021. Graphical Abstract

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is common during mechanical ventilation (MV). Beside obvious deleterious effects on muco-ciliary clearance, MV could adversely shift the host immune response towards a pro-inflammatory pattern through toll-like receptor (TLRs) up-regulation. We tested this hypothesis in a rabbit model of Staphylococcus aureus VAP. Pneumonia was caused by airway challenge with S. aureus, in either spontaneously breathing (SB) or MV rabbits (n = 13 and 17, respectively). Pneumonia assessment regarding pulmonary and systemic bacterial burden, as well as inflammatory response was done 8 and 24 hours after S. aureus challenge. In addition, ex vivo stimulations of whole blood taken from SB or MV rabbits (n = 7 and 5, respectively) with TLR2 agonist or heat-killed S. aureus were performed. Data were expressed as mean±standard deviation. After 8 hours of infection, lung injury was more severe in MV animals (1.40±0.33 versus [vs] 2.40±0.55, p = 0.007), along with greater bacterial concentrations (6.13±0.63 vs. 4.96±1.31 colony forming units/gram, p = 0.002). Interleukin (IL)-8 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-αserum concentrations reached higher levels in MV animals (p = 0.010). Whole blood obtained from MV animals released larger amounts of cytokines if stimulated with TLR2 agonist or heat-killed S. aureus (e.g., TNF-α: 1656±166 vs. 1005±89; p = 0.014). Moreover, MV induced TLR2 overexpression in both lung and spleen tissue. MV hastened tissue injury, impaired lung bacterial clearance, and promoted a systemic inflammatory response, maybe through TLR2 overexpression.

We compared hemodynamic and biological effects of the Cascade system, which uses very high volume hemofiltration (HVHF) (120 mL kg(-1) h(-1)), with those of usual care in patients with septic shock.Multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label trial in three intensive care units (ICU). Adults with septic shock with administration of epinephrine/norepinephrine were eligible. Patients were randomized to usual care plus HVHF (Cascade group), or usual care alone (control group). Primary end point was the number of catecholamine-free days up to 28 days after randomization. Secondary end points were number of days free of mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy (RRT) or ICU up to 90 days, and 7-, 28-, and 90-day mortality.We included 60 patients (29 Cascade, 31 usual care). Baseline characteristics were comparable. Median number of catecholamine-free days was 22 [IQR 11-23] vs 20 [0-25] for Cascade vs control; there was no significant difference even after adjustment. There was no significant difference in number of mechanical ventilation-free days or ICU requirement. Median number of RRT-free days was 85 [46-90] vs 74 [0-90] for Cascade vs control groups, p = 0.42. By multivariate analysis, the number of RRT-free days was significantly higher in the Cascade group (up to 25 days higher after adjustment). There was no difference in mortality at 7, 28, or 90 days.Very HVHF using the Cascade system can safely be used in patients presenting with septic shock, but it was not associated with a reduction in the need for catecholamines during the first 28 days.