4.6 Article

Fluid overload at initiation of renal replacement therapy is associated with lack of renal recovery in patients with acute kidney injury

期刊

NEPHROLOGY DIALYSIS TRANSPLANTATION
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 956-961

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfr470

关键词

acute kidney injury; dialysis; fluid overload; renal recovery

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [K24 DK062234] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) requiring initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) have poor short- and long-term outcomes, including the development of dialysis dependence. Currently, little is known about what factors may predict renal recovery in this population. Methods. We conducted a single-center, retrospective analysis of 170 hospitalized adult patients with AKI attributed to acute tubular necrosis who required inpatient initiation of RRT. Data collection included patient characteristics, laboratory data, details of hospital course and degree of fluid overload at RRT initiation. The primary outcome was recovery of renal function to dialysis independence. Results. Within 1 year of RRT initiation, 35.9% (61/170) of patients reached the primary end point of renal recovery. The median (interquartile range) duration of RRT was 1 I (3-33) days and 83.6% (51/61) recovered prior to hospital discharge. Recovering patients had significantly less fluid overload at the time of RRT initiation compared to non-recovering patients (3.5 versus 9.3%, P = 0.004). In multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis, a rise in percent fluid overload at dialysis initiation remained a significant negative predictor of renal recovery (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.95-1.00, P = 0.024). Conclusions. In patients with AM, a higher degree of fluid overload at RRT initiation predicts worse renal recovery at 1 year. Clinical trials are needed to determine whether interventions targeting fluid overload may improve patient and renal outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据