#2232 Personalized kidney replacement therapy in critically ill patients: unity makes strength!

Abstract

Abstract Background and Aims The complexity of the critically ill patient with kidney disease has increased in recent years. A holistic and multidisciplinary approach is, therefore, necessary in order to provide the best therapeutic guidance. Multiple modalities of kidney replacement therapies (KRT) are available in this setting, namely continuous kidney replacement therapies (CKRTs) and hybrid therapies, also such as sustained low-efficiency dialysis (SLED) and slow continuous ultrafiltration (SCUF). These techniques can be used in conjunction with other extracorporeal clearance therapies such as plasmapheresis (PF), and immunoadsorption (IA). Their prescription must be individualized according to the characteristics of each patient. In our hospital all KRT and extracorporeal techniques used are reviewed daily by a nephrologist. This study aims to describe the 20-year experience of our centre in individualized KRT prescription in intensive care. Methods A retrospective cohort, single centre study was conducted. We reviewed adult patients (age ≥18 years) admitted in all the ICUs of our hospital centre between January 2002 and December 2022, who required a KRT. We aimed to describe demographic data, different stages of kidney disease [AKI, AKI in CKD, chronic hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD), kidney transplant (KT), rapidly progressive kidney failure (RPKF), other causes], the KRT used and the main outcomes. Results During the study period, 1578 patients who required a KRT were admitted to the ICU. Median age was 65 (IQR: 45-81) years old and 59.9% were male. Among these patients 715 (45.3%) had AKI, 380 (24.1%) were in HD, 315 (20%) had AKI in CKD, 130 (8.2%) had a KT and 31 (2%) were in PD. Four patients had RPKF and 3 patients had other causes for KRT, such as hyperammonemia and sodium valproate poisoning. The main KRT performed were: SLED—1365 (86.5%) patients; continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (cvvHDF)—120 (7.6%) patients; SLED + cvvHDF—66 (4.2%). Other KRT executed were SLED + PF (11 patients), continuous venovenous hemofiltration (cvvHF) (8 patients) and SCUF (2 patients). Among all patients mortality rate was 42.3%, 33% had renal recovery and 7.4% started chronic HD. In AKI group the median age was 64 (IQR: 48-80) years and 56.3% were male. 576 (80.7%) performed SLED, 91 (12.7%) did cvvHDF and 36 (5.0%). Mortality rate was of 52.1%, renal recovery 45% and 2.9% started chronic HD. Conclusion Our ICU multidisciplinary approach model with a critical care nephrology specialists team translates into a large amount of accumulated experience with SLED. Our results are comparable to centres that predominantly use CKRTs. The range of different techniques used reflects the fact that KRT has become a complex treatment for critically ill patients, which allows for the prescription to be precisely tailored to the different daily clinical needs.