84
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Kidney failure related to broad-spectrum antibiotics in critically ill patients: secondary end point results from a 1200 patient randomised trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To explore whether a strategy of more intensive antibiotic therapy leads to emergence or prolongation of renal failure in intensive care patients.

          Design

          Secondary analysis from a randomised antibiotic strategy trial (the Procalcitonin And Survival Study). The randomised arms were conserved from the primary trial for the main analysis.

          Setting

          Nine mixed surgical/medical intensive care units across Denmark.

          Participants

          1200 adult intensive care patients, 18+ years, expected to stay +24 h. Exclusion criteria: bilirubin >40 mg/dl, triglycerides >1000 mg/dl, increased risk from blood sampling, pregnant/breast feeding and psychiatric patients.

          Interventions

          Patients were randomised to guideline-based therapy (‘standard-exposure’ arm) or to guideline-based therapy supplemented with antibiotic escalation whenever procalcitonin increased on daily measurements (‘high-exposure’ arm).

          Main outcome measures

          Primary end point: estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 ml/min/1.73 m 2. Secondary end points: (1) delta eGFR after starting/stopping a drug and (2) RIFLE criterion Risk ‘R’, Injury ‘I’ and Failure ‘F’. Analysis was by intention to treat.

          Results

          28-day mortality was 31.8% and comparable (Jensen et al, Crit Care Med 2011). A total of 3672/7634 (48.1%) study days during follow-up in the high-exposure versus 3016/6949 (43.4%) in the ‘standard-exposure arm were spent with eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m 2, p<0.001. In a multiple effects model, 3 piperacillin/tazobactam was identified as causing the lowest rate of renal recovery of all antibiotics used: 1.0 ml/min/1.73 m 2/24 h while exposed to this drug (95% CI 0.7 to 1.3 ml/min/1.73 m 2/24 h) vs meropenem: 2.9 ml/min/1.73 m 2/24 h (2.5 to 3.3 ml/min/1.73 m 2/24 h)); after discontinuing piperacillin/tazobactam, the renal recovery rate increased: 2.7 ml/min/1.73 m 2/24 h (2.3 to 3.1 ml/min/1.73 m 2 /24 h)). eGFR <60 ml/min/1.73 m 2 in the two groups at entry and at last day of follow-up was 57% versus 55% and 41% versus 39%, respectively.

          Conclusions

          Piperacillin/tazobactam was identified as a cause of delayed renal recovery in critically ill patients. This nephrotoxicity was not observed when using other beta-lactam antibiotics.

          Trial registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00271752.

          Article summary

          Article focus
          • To determine whether an increased exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics causes renal failure in intensive care patients.

          • To find out whether some of the antibiotics used in the interventional arm were more prone to cause renal failure.

          Key messages
          • More days with renal failure were observed in patients in the highly antibiotic exposed arm.

          • Administration of piperacillin/tazobactam caused the lowest rate of renal recovery of all analysed drugs and when this drug was discontinued, renal function recovered at a fast rate.

          • Use of piperacillin/tazobactam in intensive care patients can cause a slow renal recovery and this toxic effect seems at least partially reversible.

          Strengths and limitations of this study
          • The study is a randomised controlled trial with a high sample size and high rate of follow-up and it is the first to systematically investigate the renal toxicity of several of the analysed antibiotics. Existing end points for acute renal failure could not capture renal failure that emerged from baseline and forth, so other end points had to be designed. The study was not designed to detect persistent renal failure and more severe degrees of renal failure.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A multi-centre evaluation of the RIFLE criteria for early acute kidney injury in critically ill patients.

          The Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative Working Group recently developed the RIFLE criteria, a consensus definition for acute kidney injury (AKI). We sought to evaluate the RIFLE criteria on the day of ICU admission in a large heterogenous population of critically ill patients. Retrospective interrogation of prospectively collected data from the Australian New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database. We evaluated 120 123 patients admitted for >/=24 h from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2005 from 57 ICUs across Australia. The median (IQR) age was 64.3 (50.8-75.4) years, 59.5% were male, 28.6% had co-morbid disease, 50.3% were medical admissions and the initial mean (+/-SD) APACHEII score was 16.9 (+/-7.7). According to the RIFLE criteria, on the day of admission, AKI occurred in 36.1%, with a maximum RIFLE category of Risk in 16.3%, Injury in 13.6%, and Failure 6.3%. AKI, defined by any RIFLE category, was associated with an increase in hospital mortality (OR 3.29, 95% CI 3.19-3.41, P 36% with AKI on the day of admission. For successive increases in severity of RIFLE category, there were increases in hospital mortality. The RIFLE criteria represent a simple tool for the detection and classification of AKI and for correlation with clinical outcomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Early changes in organ function predict eventual survival in severe sepsis.

            Early identification and treatment of severe sepsis can significantly reduce mortality rate. We hypothesized that a risk prediction model based on early (baseline to day 1 of study) response to standard care should be significantly related to 28-day survival. Analysis of organ dysfunction data from two placebo-controlled severe sepsis trials (PROWESS and secretory phospholipase A2 inhibitor trials). Research laboratory. The placebo arms of two randomized, double-blind sepsis trials were combined (n = 1036). These patients met criteria for severe sepsis and received supportive standard intensive care and fluid resuscitation. None. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were calculated daily using the most aberrant physiologic or laboratory variables. Baseline and post-baseline SOFA scores categorized as improved, unchanged, or worsened were used in regression analyses correlating organ dysfunction changes with 28-day mortality. Improvement in cardiovascular (p = .0010), renal (p < .0001), or respiratory (p = .0469) function from baseline to day 1 was significantly related to survival. Odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) associated with improved vs. worsened respiratory, cardiovascular, or renal function before start of day 1 were 0.56 (0.35-0.91), 0.33 (0.18-0.59), and 0.30 (0.17-0.52), respectively. Continued improvement in cardiovascular function before start of day 2 and start of day 3 was associated with further improvement in survival (p <. 0001), with odds ratios of 0.15 (0.06-0.39) and 0.11 (0.04-0.31) for patients who improved compared with those who worsened. No other organ system was retained in the model, and improvement beyond day 1 in any other organ function did not add to the model's predictive power. These analyses suggest that outcomes for patients with severe sepsis are closely related to early (baseline to day 1 here) improvement, or lack thereof, in organ function. Also, clinical improvement on subsequent days may have little additional impact on the likelihood of survival.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Risk factors for ARDS in patients receiving mechanical ventilation for > 48 h.

              Low tidal volume (Vt) ventilation for ARDS is a well-accepted concept. However, controversy persists regarding the optimal ventilator settings for patients without ARDS receiving mechanical ventilation. This study tested the hypothesis that ventilator settings influence the development of new ARDS. Retrospective analysis of patients from the Multi Parameter Intelligent Monitoring of Intensive Care-II project database who received mechanical ventilation for > or = 48 h between 2001 and 2005. A total of 2,583 patients required > 48 h of ventilation. Of 789 patients who did not have ARDS at hospital admission, ARDS developed in 152 patients (19%). Univariate analysis revealed high peak inspiratory pressure (odds ratio [OR], 1.53 per SD; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28 to 1.84), increasing positive end-expiratory pressure (OR, 1.35 per SD; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.58), and Vt (OR, 1.36 per SD; 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.64) to be significant risk factors. Major nonventilator risk factors for ARDS included sepsis, low pH, elevated lactate, low albumin, transfusion of packed RBCs, transfusion of plasma, high net fluid balance, and low respiratory compliance. Multivariable logistic regression showed that peak pressure (OR, 1.31 per SD; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.59), high net fluid balance (OR, 1.3 per SD; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.56), transfusion of plasma (OR, 1.26 per SD; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.49), sepsis (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.00 to 2.45), and Vt (OR, 1.29 per SD; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.52) were significantly associated with the development of ARDS. The associations between the development of ARDS and clinical interventions, including high airway pressures, high Vt, positive fluid balance, and transfusion of blood products, suggests that ARDS may be a preventable complication in some cases.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2012
                11 March 2012
                11 March 2012
                : 2
                : 2
                : e000635
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Copenhagen HIV Programme, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [2 ]Department of Clinical Microbiology, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark
                [3 ]Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital Glostrup, Glostrup, Denmark
                [4 ]Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital Hillerød, Hillerød, Denmark
                [5 ]Diagnostic Centre at Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [6 ]Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital Gentofte, Gentofte, Denmark
                [7 ]Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Aarhus University Hospital in Skejby, Aarhus, Denmark
                [8 ]Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark
                [9 ]Royal Free Hospital, School of Medicine, London, UK
                [10 ]Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital Herlev, Herlev, Denmark
                [11 ]Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Copenhagen University Hospital, Roskilde, Denmark
                [12 ]Department of Clinical Microbiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
                [13 ]Department of Infectious Diseases, Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark
                Author notes
                Correspondence to Dr Jens-Ulrik Stæhr Jensen; juj@ 123456cphiv.dk
                [*]

                Participating investigators are listed in the appendix 1.

                Article
                bmjopen-2011-000635
                10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000635
                3307126
                22411933
                c2556570-de91-44a2-9ba8-a9f8292c4f87
                © 2012, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.

                History
                : 17 November 2011
                : 10 February 2012
                Categories
                Infectious Diseases
                Research
                1506
                1706
                1707
                1722
                1723
                1728

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article