Author:
Park Cheol Ho,Koh Hee Byung,Lee Jin Hyeog,Jung Hui-Yun,Ha Joohyung,Kim Hyung Woo,Park Jung Tak,Han Seung Hyeok,Kang Shin-Wook,Yoo Tae-Hyun
Abstract
AbstractOptimal strategy for volume control and the clinical implication of achieved volume control are unknown in patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (AKI) receiving continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). This randomized controlled trial aimed to compare the survival according to conventional or bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)-guided volume control strategy in patients with sepsis-associated AKI receiving CRRT. We also compared patient survival according to achieved volume accumulation rate ([cumulative fluid balance during 3 days × 100]/fluid overload measured by BIA at enrollment) as a post-hoc analysis. We randomly assigned patients to conventional volume control strategy (n = 39) or to BIA-guided volume control strategy (n = 34). There were no differences in 28-day mortality (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.63–2.23) or 90-day mortality (HR, 0.99; 95% CI 0.57–1.75) between conventional and BIA-guided volume control group. In the secondary analysis, achieved volume accumulation rate was significantly associated with patient survival. Compared with the achieved volume accumulation rate of ≤ − 50%, the HRs (95% CIs) for the risk of 90-day mortality were 1.21 (0.29–5.01), 0.55 (0.12–2.48), and 7.18 (1.58–32.51) in that of − 50–0%, 1–50%, and > 50%, respectively. Hence, BIA-guided volume control in patients with sepsis-associated AKI receiving CRRT did not improve patient outcomes. In the secondary analysis, achieved volume accumulation rate was associated with patient survival.
Funder
Fresenius Medical Care, Korea, Republic of
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC