ORCID Profile
0000-0002-5002-2721
Current Organisations
Barts Health NHS Trust
,
Queen Mary University of London
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 2011
DOI: 10.1186/CC9415
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 04-2019
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 20-07-2010
Abstract: Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is the preferred treatment for acute kidney injury (AKI) in intensive care units (ICUs) throughout much of the developed world. Despite its widespread use, however, no formal proof exists that patient outcomes are improved when CRRT is used in preference to intermittent hemodialysis (IHD). In addition, controversy and center-specific practice variation in the clinical application of CRRT continues, owing to a lack of randomized multicenter studies of both CRRT and IHD providing level 1 data to inform clinical practice. Now, however, the publication of results from the Veterans Affairs/National Institutes of Health Acute Renal Failure Trial Network (ATN) study and the Randomized Evaluation of Normal versus Augmented Level Renal Replacement Therapy (RENAL) trial have provided an unparalleled quantity of information to guide clinicians. These pivotal trials investigated different intensities of CRRT in the ICU and provided level 1 evidence that effluent flow rates >25 ml/kg per hour do not improve outcomes in patients in the ICU. In this Review, we discuss the background and results of the ATN and RENAL trials and the emerging consensus that CRRT is the most appropriate treatment for AKI in vasopressor-dependent patients in the ICU. Finally, we describe the remaining controversies regarding the use of CRRT and the questions that remain to be answered.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 28-11-2018
DOI: 10.1093/QJMED/HCY277
Abstract: Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) is associated with adverse outcomes therefore identifying patients who are at risk of developing AKI in hospital may lead to targeted prevention. We undertook a UK-wide study in acute medical units (AMUs) to define those who develop hospital-acquired AKI (hAKI) to determine risk factors associated with hAKI and to assess the feasibility of developing a risk prediction score. Prospective multi-centre cohort study across 72 AMUs in the UK. Data collected from all patients who presented over a 24-h period. Chronic dialysis, community-acquired AKI (cAKI) and those with fewer than two creatinine measurements were excluded. Primary outcome was the development of h-AKI. Two thousand four hundred and fourty-six in iduals were admitted to the seventy-two participating centres. Three hundred and eighty-four patients (16%) sustained AKI of whom two hundred and eighty-seven (75%) were cAKI and ninety-seven (25%) were hAKI. After exclusions, chronic kidney disease [Odds Ratio (OR) 3.08, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.96-4.83], diuretic prescription (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.5-3.65), a lower haemoglobin concentration and elevated serum bilirubin were independently associated with development of hAKI. Multi-variable model discrimination was only moderate (c-statistic 0.75). AKI in AMUs is common and associated with worse outcomes, with the majority of cases community acquired. Only a small proportion of patients develop hAKI. Prognostic risk factor modelling demonstrated only moderate discrimination implying that widespread adoption of such an AKI clinical risk score across all AMU admissions is not currently justified. More targeted risk assessment or automated methods of calculating in idual risk may be more appropriate alternatives.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 04-2023
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 02-07-2021
Publisher: Research Square Platform LLC
Date: 30-09-2021
DOI: 10.21203/RS.3.RS-910468/V1
Abstract: Purpose: Frailty is often used in clinical decision-making for patients with COVID-19, yet studies have found variable influence of frailty on outcomes in those admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). In this in idual patient data meta-analysis, we evaluated the characteristics, and outcomes of frail patients admitted to ICU with COVID-19. Methods: We contacted the corresponding authors of sixteen eligible studies published between December 1 st 2019 and February 28 th 2021 reporting the clinical frailty scale (CFS) in patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to ICU. In idual patient data was obtained from 7 studies. We classified patients as non-frail (CFS=1-4) or frail (CFS=5-8). The primary outcome was hospital mortality. We also compared the use of mechanical ventilation (MV) and the proportion of ICU bed-days between frailty categories. Results: Of the 2001 patients admitted to ICU, 388 (19.4%) were frail. Increasing age and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, CFS ≥4, use of MV, vasopressors, renal replacement therapy and hyperlactatemia were risk factors for death in a multivariable analysis. Hospital mortality was higher in frail patients (65.2% vs. 41.8% p .001), with adjusted mortality increasing with a rising CFS score beyond 3. Younger and non-frail patients were more likely to receive MV. Frail patients spent less time on MV (median days [IQR] 9 [5-16] vs. 11 [6-18] p=0.012) and accounted for only 12.3% of total ICU bed-days. Conclusion: Frail patients with COVID-19 were commonly admitted to ICU and had greater hospital mortality but spent relatively fewer days in ICU when compared with non-frail patients. Frail patients receiving MV were at greater risk of death than non-frail patients. Systematic review registration: Registration protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42020224255).
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 12-2012
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 05-2019
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 05-09-2019
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 30-01-2017
Publisher: Massachusetts Medical Society
Date: 03-08-2017
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2019
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 14-01-2015
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2016
DOI: 10.1093/BJA/AEW066
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 23-02-2023
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 06-2018
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003092
Abstract: Acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy in severe vasodilatory shock is associated with an unfavorable prognosis. Angiotensin II treatment may help these patients by potentially restoring renal function without decreasing intrarenal oxygenation. We analyzed the impact of angiotensin II on the outcomes of acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy. Post hoc analysis of the Angiotensin II for the Treatment of High-Output Shock 3 trial. ICUs. Patients with acute kidney injury treated with renal replacement therapy at initiation of angiotensin II or placebo ( n = 45 and n = 60, respectively). IV angiotensin II or placebo. Primary end point: survival through day 28 secondary outcomes included renal recovery through day 7 and increase in mean arterial pressure from baseline of ≥ 10 mm Hg or increase to ≥ 75 mm Hg at hour 3. Survival rates through day 28 were 53% (95% CI, 38%–67%) and 30% (95% CI, 19%–41%) in patients treated with angiotensin II and placebo ( p = 0.012), respectively. By day 7, 38% (95% CI, 25%–54%) of angiotensin II patients discontinued RRT versus 15% (95% CI, 8%–27%) placebo ( p = 0.007). Mean arterial pressure response was achieved in 53% (95% CI, 38%–68%) and 22% (95% CI, 12%–34%) of patients treated with angiotensin II and placebo ( p = 0.001), respectively. In patients with acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy at study drug initiation, 28-day survival and mean arterial pressure response were higher, and rate of renal replacement therapy liberation was greater in the angiotensin II group versus the placebo group. These findings suggest that patients with vasodilatory shock and acute kidney injury requiring renal replacement therapy may preferentially benefit from angiotensin II.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 23-02-2012
DOI: 10.1111/J.1440-1797.2011.01546.X
Abstract: To test whether short-term perioperative administration of oral atorvastatin could reduce incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in cardiac surgical patients. We conducted a double-blind, randomized controlled trial in 100 cardiac surgical patients at increased risk of postoperative AKI. Patients were randomized to atorvastatin (40 mg once daily for 4 days starting preoperatively) or identical placebo capsule. Primary outcome was to detect a smaller absolute rise in postoperative creatinine with statin therapy. Secondary outcomes included AKI defined by the creatinine criteria of RIFLE consensus classification (RIFLE R, I or F), change in urinary neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) concentration, requirement for renal replacement therapy, length of stay in intensive care, length of stay in hospital and hospital mortality. Study groups were well matched. For each patient maximal increase in creatinine during the 5 days after surgery was assessed median maximal increase was 28 µmol/L in the atorvastatin group and 29.5 µmol/L in the placebo group (P = 0.62). RIFLE R or greater occurred in 26% of patients with atorvastatin and 32% with placebo (P = 0.65). Postoperatively urine NGAL changes were similar (median NGAL : creatinine ratio at intensive care unit admission: atorvastatin group 1503 ng/mg, placebo group 1101 ng/mg P = 0.22). Treatment was well tolerated and adverse events were similar between groups. Short-term perioperative atorvastatin use was not associated with a reduced incidence of postoperative AKI or smaller increases in urinary NGAL. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00910221).
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 2011
DOI: 10.1186/CC10318
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 06-2012
Publisher: S. Karger AG
Date: 2010
DOI: 10.1159/000313770
Abstract: Several large observational studies or randomized controlled trials in the field of critical care nephrology have been completed and reported, or recently completed or have recently begun recruitment. These studies provide important information to guide our appreciation of current practice and consider new potentially effective intervention for the prevention or attenuation of acute kidney injury or suggest new avenues for the use of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in the treatment of sepsis. In particular, two studies, the ATN study and the RENAL study (both multicenter randomized controlled trials of > 1,000 patients) provide, for the first time, level I evidence to guide the practice of RRT in critically ill patients and to better define the optimal intensity of such RRT in this setting. Clinicians practicing in the field of critical care nephrology need to be aware of these trials, their details, their findings or design or current recruitment rate and likely time of completion to continue to offer their patients the highest level of evidence-based medical care.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2018
DOI: 10.1016/J.BJA.2018.03.020
Abstract: The Standardising Endpoints for Perioperative Medicine group was established to derive an appropriate set of endpoints for use in clinical trials related to anaesthesia and perioperative medicine. Anaesthetic or analgesic technique during cancer surgery with curative intent may influence the risk of recurrence or metastasis. However, given the current equipoise in the existing literature, prospective, randomised, controlled trials are necessary to test this hypothesis. As such, a cancer subgroup was formed to derive endpoints related to research in onco-anaesthesia based on a current evidence base, international consensus and expert guidance. We undertook a systematic review to identify measures of oncological outcome used in the oncological, surgical, and wider literature. A multiround Delphi consensus process that included up to 89 clinician-researchers was then used to refine a recommended list of endpoints. We identified 90 studies in a literature search, which were the basis for a preliminary list of nine outcome measures and their definitions. A further two were added during the Delphi process. Response rates for Delphi rounds one, two, and three were 88% (n=9), 82% (n=73), and 100% (n=10), respectively. A final list of 10 defined endpoints was refined and developed, of which six secured approval by ≥70% of the group: cancer health related quality of life, days alive and out of hospital at 90 days, time to tumour progression, disease-free survival, cancer-specific survival, and overall survival (and 5-yr overall survival). Standardised endpoints in clinical outcomes studies will support benchmarking and pooling (meta-analysis) of trials. It is therefore recommended that one or more of these consensus-derived endpoints should be considered for inclusion in clinical trials evaluating a causal effect of anaesthesia-analgesia technique on oncological outcomes.
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 10-2018
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003350
Abstract: In critically ill patients with acute kidney injury receiving vasopressors, high cytokine levels may sustain the shock state. High cutoff hemofiltration achieves greater cytokine removal in ex vivo and in animal models and may reduce the duration of shock but may also increase albumin losses. This was a single-center double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff to continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard. Tertiary care hospital in Australia. Vasopressor-dependent patients in acute kidney injury who were admitted to the ICU. Norepinephrine-free time were calculated in critically ill vasopressor-dependent patients in acute kidney injury, randomized to either continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff or continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard. A total of 76 patients were randomized with the following characteristics (continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff vs continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard) median age of 65 versus 70 year, percentage of males 47% versus 68%, and median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scores of 25 versus 23.5. The median hours of norepinephrine-free time at day 7 were 32 (0–110.8) for continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff and 56 hours (0–109.3 hr) ( p = 0.520) for continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard. Inhospital mortality was 55.6% with continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff versus 34.2% with continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard (adjusted odds ratio, 2.49 95% CI, 0.81–7.66 p = 0.191). There was no significant difference in time to cessation of norepinephrine ( p = 0.358), time to cessation of hemofiltration ( p = 0.563), and filter life ( p = 0.21). Serum albumin levels ( p = 0.192) were similar and the median dose of IV albumin given was 90 grams (20–212 g ) for continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff and 80 grams (15–132 g ) for continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard ( p = 0.252). In critically ill patients with acute kidney injury, continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff did not reduce the duration of vasopressor support or mortality or change albumin levels compared with continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2017
DOI: 10.1016/J.EJSO.2017.08.002
Abstract: Previous research suggests that patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal surgery are at high risk of poor postoperative outcomes. The aim of our study was to describe patient outcomes after elective upper gastrointestinal surgery at a global level. Prospective analysis of data collected during an international seven-day cohort study of 474 hospitals in 27 countries. Patients undergoing elective upper gastrointestinal surgery were recruited. Outcome measures were in-hospital complications and mortality at 30-days. Results are presented as n(%) and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. 2139 patients were included, of whom 498 (23.2%) developed one or more postoperative complications, with 30 deaths (1.4%). Patients with complications had longer median hospital stay 11 (6-18) days vs. 5 (2-10) days. Infectious complications were most frequent, affecting 368 (17.2%) patients. 328 (15.3%) patients were admitted to critical care postoperatively, of whom 161 (49.1%) developed a complication with 14 deaths (4.3%). In a multivariable logistic regression model we identified age (OR 1.02 [1.01-1.03]), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status III (OR 2.12 [1.44-3.16]) and IV (OR 3.23 [1.72-6.09]), surgery for cancer (OR 1.63 [1.27-2.11]), open procedure (OR 1.40 [1.10-1.78]), intermediate surgery (OR 1.75 [1.12-2.81]) and major surgery (OR 2.65 [1.72-4.23]) as independent risk factors for postoperative complications. Patients undergoing major surgery for upper gastrointestinal cancer experienced twice the rate of complications compared to those undergoing other procedures (224/578 patients [38.8%] versus 274/1561 patients [17.6%]). Complications and death are common after upper gastrointestinal surgery. Patients undergoing major surgery for cancer are at greatest risk.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 12-2015
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 29-07-2011
DOI: 10.1093/NDT/GFR387
Abstract: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common and serious complication of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) surgery. Hepcidin, a peptide hormone that regulates iron homeostasis, is a potential biomarker of AKI following CPB. We investigated the association between post-operative changes in serum and urinary hepcidin and AKI in 93 patients undergoing CPB. Twenty-five patients developed AKI based on the Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, End-stage kidney disease (RIFLE) criteria in the first 5 days. Serum hepcidin, urine hepcidin concentration, the urinary hepcidin:creatinine ratio and fractional excretion of hepcidin in urine rose significantly after surgery. However, urine hepcidin concentration and urinary hepcidin:creatinine ratio were significantly lower at 24 h in patients with RIFLE-Risk, Injury or Failure compared to those without AKI (P = 0.0009 and P < 0.0001, respectively). Receiver operator characteristic analysis showed that lower 24-h urine hepcidin concentration and urinary hepcidin:creatinine ratio were sensitive and specific predictors of AKI. The urinary hepcidin:creatinine ratio had an area under the curve for the diagnosis of RIFLE ≥ risk at 24 h of 0.77 and of 0.84 for RIFLE ≥ injury. Urinary hepcidin had similar predictive accuracy. Such predictive ability remained when patients with early creatinine increases were excluded. Urinary hepcidin and hepcidin:creatinine ratio are biomarkers of AKI after CPB, with an inverse association between its increase at 24 h and risk of AKI in the first five post-operative days. Measuring hepcidin in the urine on the first day following surgery may deliver earlier diagnosis and interventions.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2022
DOI: 10.1016/J.BJA.2021.09.027
Abstract: Outcome selection underpins clinical trial interpretation. Inconsistency in outcome selection and reporting hinders comparison of different trials' results, reducing the utility of research findings. We conducted an iterative consensus process to develop a set of Core Outcome Measures for Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (COMPAC), following the established Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials (COMET) methodology. First, we undertook a systematic review of RCTs in high-impact journals to describe current outcome reporting trends. We then surveyed patients, carers, researchers, and perioperative clinicians about important outcomes after surgery. Finally, a purposive stakeholder s le participated in a modified Delphi process to develop a core outcome set for perioperative and anaesthesia trials. Our systematic review revealed widespread inconsistency in outcome reporting, with variable or absent definitions, levels of detail, and temporal criteria. In the survey, almost all patients, carers, and clinicians rated clinical outcome measures critically important, but clinicians rated patient-centred outcomes less highly than patients and carers. The final core outcome set was: (i) mortality/survival (postoperative mortality, long-term survival) (ii) perioperative complications (major postoperative complications/adverse events complications/adverse events causing permanent harm) (iii) resource use (length of hospital stay, unplanned readmission within 30 days) (iv) short-term recovery (discharge destination, level of dependence, or both) and (v) longer-term recovery (overall health-related quality of life). This core set, incorporating important outcomes for both clinicians and patients, should guide outcome selection in future perioperative medicine or anaesthesia trials. Mapping these alongside standardised endpoint definitions will yield a comprehensive perioperative outcome framework.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 2011
DOI: 10.1186/CC10114
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 08-2013
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 22-12-2010
Abstract: Intravenous fluids are widely administered to patients who have, or are at risk of, acute kidney injury (AKI). However, deleterious consequences of overzealous fluid therapy are increasingly being recognized. Salt and water overload can predispose to organ dysfunction, impaired wound healing and nosocomial infection, particularly in patients with AKI, in whom fluid challenges are frequent and excretion is impaired. In this Review article, we discuss how interstitial edema can further delay renal recovery and why conservative fluid strategies are now being advocated. Applying these strategies in critical illness is challenging. Although volume resuscitation is needed to restore cardiac output, it often leads to tissue edema, thereby contributing to ongoing organ dysfunction. Conservative strategies of fluid management mandate a switch towards neutral balance and then negative balance once hemodynamic stabilization is achieved. In patients with AKI, this strategy might require renal replacement therapy to be given earlier than when more-liberal fluid management is used. However, hypovolemia and renal hypoperfusion can occur in patients with AKI if excessive fluid removal is pursued with diuretics or extracorporeal therapy. Thus, accurate assessment of fluid status and careful definition of targets are needed at all stages to improve clinical outcomes. A conservative strategy of fluid management was recently tested and found to be effective in a large, randomized, controlled trial in patients with acute lung injury. Similar randomized, controlled studies in patients with AKI now seem justified.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2014
DOI: 10.1093/BJA/AEU297
Abstract: The Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) dedicated its Twelfth Consensus Conference (2013) to all aspects of fluid therapy, including the management of fluid overload (FO). The aim of the working subgroup 'Mechanical fluid removal' was to review the indications, prescription, and management of mechanical fluid removal within the broad context of fluid management of critically ill patients. The working group developed a list of preliminary questions and objectives and performed a modified Delphi analysis of the existing literature. Relevant studies were identified through a literature search using the MEDLINE database and bibliographies of relevant research and review articles. After review of the existing literature, the group agreed the following consensus statements: (i) in critically ill patients with FO and with failure of or inadequate response to pharmacological therapy, mechanical fluid removal should be considered as a therapy to optimize fluid balance. (ii) When using mechanical fluid removal or management, targets for rate of fluid removal and net fluid removal should be based upon the overall fluid balance of the patient and also physiological variables, in idualized, and reassessed frequently. (iii) More research on the role and practice of mechanical fluid removal in critically ill patients not meeting fluid balance goals (including in children) is necessary. Mechanical fluid removal should be considered as a therapy for FO, but more research is necessary to determine its exact role and clinical application.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-07-2018
DOI: 10.1111/ANAE.14349
Abstract: The peri-operative use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers is thought to be associated with an increased risk of postoperative acute kidney injury. To reduce this risk, these agents are commonly withheld during the peri-operative period. This study aimed to investigate if withholding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers peri-operatively reduces the risk of acute kidney injury following major non-cardiac surgery. Patients undergoing elective major surgery on the gastrointestinal tract and/or the liver were eligible for inclusion in this prospective study. The primary outcome was the development of acute kidney injury within seven days of operation. Adjusted multi-level models were used to account for centre-level effects and propensity score matching was used to reduce the effects of selection bias between treatment groups. A total of 949 patients were included from 160 centres across the UK and Republic of Ireland. From this population, 573 (60.4%) patients had their angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers withheld during the peri-operative period. One hundred and seventy-five (18.4%) patients developed acute kidney injury there was no difference in the incidence of acute kidney injury between patients who had their angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers continued or withheld (107 (18.7%) vs. 68 (18.1%), respectively p = 0.914). Following propensity matching, withholding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-2 receptor blockers did not demonstrate a protective effect against the development of postoperative acute kidney injury (OR (95%CI) 0.89 (0.58-1.34) p = 0.567).
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2018
DOI: 10.1016/J.BJA.2018.02.007
Abstract: There is a need for robust, clearly defined, patient-relevant outcome measures for use in randomised trials in perioperative medicine. Our objective was to establish standard outcome measures for postoperative pulmonary complications research. A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Web of Science, SciELO, and the Korean Journal Database. Definitions were extracted from included manuscripts. We then conducted a three-stage Delphi consensus process to select the optimal outcome measures in terms of methodological quality and overall suitability for perioperative trials. From 2358 records, the full texts of 81 manuscripts were retrieved, of which 45 met the inclusion criteria. We identified three main categories of outcome measure specific to perioperative pulmonary outcomes: (i) composite outcome measures of multiple pulmonary outcomes (27 definitions) (ii) pneumonia (12 definitions) and (iii) respiratory failure (six definitions). These were rated by the group according to suitability for routine use. The majority of definitions were given a low score, and many were imprecise, difficult to apply consistently, or both, in large patient populations. A small number of highly rated definitions were identified as appropriate for widespread use. The group then recommended four outcome measures for future use, including one new definition. A large number of postoperative pulmonary outcome measures have been used, but most are poorly defined. Our four recommended outcome measures include a new definition of postoperative pulmonary complications, incorporating an assessment of severity. These definitions will meet the needs of most clinical effectiveness trials of treatments to improve postoperative pulmonary outcomes.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 03-05-2017
DOI: 10.1007/S00134-017-4817-X
Abstract: Acute kidney injury (AKI) and fluids are closely linked through oliguria, which is a marker of the former and a trigger for administration of the latter. Recent progress in this field has challenged the physiological and clinical rational of using oliguria as a trigger for the administration of fluid and brought attention to the delicate balance between benefits and harms of different aspects of fluid management in critically ill patients, in particular those with AKI. This narrative review addresses various aspects of fluid management in AKI outlining physiological aspects, the effects of crystalloids and colloids on kidney function and the effect of various resuscitation and de-resuscitation strategies on the course and outcome of AKI.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 12-11-2014
Abstract: In patients with acute kidney injury (AKI), optimization of systemic haemodynamics is central to the clinical management. However, considerable debate exists regarding the efficacy, nature, extent and duration of fluid resuscitation, particularly when the patient has undergone major surgery or is in septic shock. Crucially, volume resuscitation might be required to maintain or restore cardiac output. However, resultant fluid accumulation and tissue oedema can substantially contribute to ongoing organ dysfunction and, particularly in patients developing AKI, serious clinical consequences. In this Review, we discuss the conflict between the desire to achieve adequate resuscitation of shock and the need to mitigate the harmful effects of fluid overload. In patients with AKI, limiting and resolving fluid overload might prompt earlier use of renal replacement therapy. However, rapid or early excessive fluid removal with diuretics or extracorporeal therapy might lead to hypovolaemia and recurrent renal injury. Optimal management might involve a period of guided fluid resuscitation, followed by management of an even fluid balance and, finally, an appropriate rate of fluid removal. To obtain best clinical outcomes, serial fluid status assessment and careful definition of cardiovascular and renal targets will be required during fluid resuscitation and removal.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 13-06-2017
Abstract: To identify and compare how intensive care unit specialists in the United Kingdom and Australia and New Zealand self-reportedly define, assess and manage fluid overload in critically ill patients using a structured online questionnaire. We assessed 219 responses. Australia and New Zealand and United Kingdom intensive care unit specialists reported using clinical examination findings, bedside tools and radiological features to assess fluid status, diagnose fluid overload and initiate fluid removal in the critically ill. An elevated central venous pressure is not regarded as helpful in diagnosing fluid overload and targeting a clinician-set fluid balance is the most popular management strategy. Renal replacement therapy is used ahead of more diuretic therapy in patients who are oligo/anuric, or when diuretic therapy has not generated an adequate response. This self-reported account of practice by United Kingdom and Australia and New Zealand intensivists demonstrates that fluid overload remains poorly defined with variability in both management and practice.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for John Prowle.