IVOIRE Study Research Articles

Influence of deprivation on initial severity and prognosis of patients admitted to the ICU: the prospective, multicentre, observational IVOIRE cohort study

BackgroundThe influence of socioeconomic status on patient outcomes is unclear. We assessed the impact of socioeconomic deprivation on severity of illness at intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and on the risk of death at 3 months after ICU admission.MethodsThe IVOIRE study was a prospective, observational, multicentre cohort study in the ICU of 8 participating hospitals in France, including patients aged ≥ 18 years admitted to the ICU and receiving at least one life support therapy for organ failure. The primary outcomes were severity at admission (assessed by SAPSII score), and mortality at 3 months. Socioeconomic data were obtained from interviews with patients or family. Deprivation was assessed using the EPICES score.ResultsAmong 1294 patents included between 2013 and 2016, 629 (48.6%) were classed as deprived and differed significantly from non-deprived subjects in terms of sociodemographic characteristics and pre-existing conditions. The mean SAPS II score at admission was 50.1 ± 19.4 in deprived patients and 52.3 ± 17.3 in non-deprived patients, with no significant difference by multivariable analysis (β = − 1.85 [95% CI − 3.86; + 0.16, p = 0.072]). The proportion of death was 31.1% at 3 months, without significant differences between deprived and non-deprived patients, even after adjustment for confounders.ConclusionsDeprivation is frequent in patients admitted to the ICU and is not associated with disease severity at admission, or with mortality at 3 months between deprived and non-deprived patients.Trial registration The IVOIRE cohort is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT01907581, registration date 17/7/2013

Third- and fourth-line treatment in patients with RCC: Results of a prospective multicentric non-randomised study (IVOIRE study).

4567Background: Sequential targeted therapy is standard in patients (pts) with clear-cell renal carcinoma (RCC). Clinical Practice Guidelines exists only for first and second lines (ESMO recommenda...

High-volume versus standard-volume haemofiltration for septic shock patients with acute kidney injury (IVOIRE study): a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Septic shock is a leading cause of death among critically ill patients, in particular when complicated by acute kidney injury (AKI). Small experimental and human clinical studies have suggested that high-volume haemofiltration (HVHF) may improve haemodynamic profile and mortality. We sought to determine the impact of HVHF on 28-day mortality in critically ill patients with septic shock and AKI. This was a prospective, randomized, open, multicentre clinical trial conducted at 18 intensive care units in France, Belgium and the Netherlands. A total of 140 critically ill patients with septic shock and AKI for less than 24 h were enrolled from October 2005 through March 2010. Patients were randomized to either HVHF at 70 mL/kg/h or standard-volume haemofiltration (SVHF) at 35 mL/kg/h, for a 96-h period. Primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. The trial was stopped prematurely after enrolment of 140 patients because of slow patient accrual and resources no longer being available. A total of 137 patients were analysed (two withdrew consent, one was excluded); 66 patients in the HVHF group and 71 in the SVHF group. Mortality at 28 days was lower than expected but not different between groups (HVHF 37.9 % vs. SVHF 40.8 %, log-rank test p = 0.94). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the secondary endpoints between treatment groups. In the IVOIRE trial, there was no evidence that HVHF at 70 mL/kg/h, when compared with contemporary SVHF at 35 mL/kg/h, leads to a reduction of 28-day mortality or contributes to early improvements in haemodynamic profile or organ function. HVHF, as applied in this trial, cannot be recommended for treatment of septic shock complicated by AKI.

The Big Bang of Hemofiltration: The Beginning of a New Era in the Third Millennium for Extra-Corporeal Blood Purification!

Since the last decade, hemofiltration and especially high volume hemofiltration has rapidly evolved from a somewhat experimental treatment towards a potentially effective 'adjunctive' therapy in severe septic shock and especially refractory or catecholamine resistant hypodynamic septic shock. Nevertheless, this approach lacks prospective randomized studies (PRT'S) evaluating the critical role of early hemofiltration in sepsis. An important step forward which could be called the 'big bang' in term of hemofiltration was the publication of a PRT in patients with acute renal failure (ARF) (1). Before this study (2), nobody believed that hemofiltration could change the survival rate in intensive care. Since that big bang, many physicians consider that hemofiltration at a certain dose can change the survival rate in intensive care. So the world of hemofiltration in ICU is not a definitive world, it is still in expansion. Indeed, we now have to try to define what will be the exact dose we need in septic acute renal failure. This dose might well be 'higher' than 35 ml/kg/hour in the septic acute renal failure 'group' as suggested by many studies (2-5). At present, it is the issue of continuous dose of high volume hemofiltration that has to be tested in future randomized studies. Since the Vicenza study (2) has shown that 35 ml/kg/h is the best dose in terms of survival, dealing with non septic acute renal failure in ICU, several studies from different groups have shown that, in septic acute renal failure, a higher dose might correlate with better survival. This has also been shown in some way by the study of the 'Vicenza group' but not with a statistically significant value (2). New PRT'S have just started in Europe like the IVOIRE study (hIgh VOlume in Intensive caRE) (6) and the RENAL study. Another large study is looking more basically at dose in non septic acute renal failure in Australasia and is led by the group of Rinaldo Bellomo in Melbourne (7) as well as the ATN study (8) led by Palevsky and colleagues in the USA, also testing the importance of dose in the treatment for ARF. Nevertheless, 'early goal-directed hemofiltration therapy' like early goal directed therapy (9) has to be studied in our critical ill patients. Regarding this issue, fewer studies, mainly retrospective exist, but again the IVOIRE study (6) will address this issue by studying septic patients with acute renal injury according to the Rifle classification (10). So, this review focuses on the early application and on the adequate dose of continuous high volume hemofiltration in septic shock in order to improve not only hemodynamics, but survival in this very severely ill cohort of patients. This could well be called the 'big bang of hemofiltration' as one could never have anticipated that an adequate dose of hemofiltration could markedly influence the survival rate of ICU-septic acute renal failure patients. On top of the use of early and adequate dose of hemofiltration in sepsis, a higher dose could also provide better renal recovery rate and reduce the risk of associate chronic dialysis in these patients. Furthermore, this paper also reviews 'brand' new theories regarding the rationale for hemofiltration in sepsis. Finally, this paper also addresses the so-called negative studies as well anticipated side effects.