#226 Outcome of intermittent hemodialysis vs. continuous kidney replacement therapy for acute kidney injury: observational prospective multi-center study

Abstract

Abstract Background and Aims Continuous hemodialysis in hemodynamically stable acute kidney injury (AKI) patients may impact outcome differently compared to intermittent hemodialysis, although this issue is controversial. We look at differences in AKI outcomes between patients treated with intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) and patients treated with continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) modalities in in Kuwait. Method Clinically and hemodynamically stable adult inpatients with native kidneys (i.e., did not need inotropic support or mechanical ventilation) who received IHD or CKRT for AKI, in seven public hospitals in Kuwait between 1/January to 31/December 2021 were recruited. CKRT was selected due to lack of access to water treatment in patients wards in some of the participating hospitals. Demographics, comorbidities, dialytic and non-dialytic management data, and 30-day kidney and patient outcome data for, were prospectively collected and analyzed. Results Total number of AKI patients not on inotropic support and not mechanically ventilated who received dialysis during study period was 229 (age: 59.9 years; males: 60.3%; baseline eGFR: 56 ml/min). IHD (group 1) was performed in 27.1% of the cohort whereas CKRT (group 2) was performed in 72.9%. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in age (58.4 for IHD and 59.9 for CKRT, p=0.6), baseline eGFR (55 ml/min for IHD and 56.4 for CKRT, p=0.8), sex ratio, incidence of diabetes, hypertension or cardiovascular disease, or cause of AKI. However, renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) were precipitating factors for AKI more significantly in the IHD group (25.8% vs. 6% for CKRT, P ≤ 0.001). Intensive care unit (ICU) contributed 21% of cases (14.5% for IHD and 23.4% for CKRT, insignificant p value of 0.1). Also, there was no statistically significant difference in receiving intravenous fluids between the two groups (71% for IHD vs. 71.5% for CKRT, p=0.8), however, more patients in the IHD group received diuretics (62.9% vs 43.1% for CKRT, p=0.008). Dialysis vascular access was right internal jugular vein in 59% (75.8% FOR IHD vs. 52.7% for CKRT) followed by femoral vein in 35% of cases (19.4%). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) was used in only two cases in the CKRT group. Of the total cohort, 21.8% died, with no difference between the two groups (16.1% for IHD vs 24% for CKRT, p=0.2). Partial recovery was higher in IHD group (30.8% vs.17.3%, p=0.046) and complete recovery higher in CKRT group 33.1% vs 13.5%, p=0.009). eGFR at 30 days was 53.2 ml/min with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (44.6 for IHD vs 56.1 for CKRT, p=0.15). Conclusion The IHD group and the CKRT group were statistically similar in basic characteristics and received similar lines of management, except for the diuretics. At 30 days, they had similar death rates but CKRT group had higher rates of complete recovery than the IHD group. This is in line with published literature that suggest CKRT may not improve mortality but may improve kidney recovery.