Vascular access for renal replacement therapy among 459 critically ill patients: a pragmatic analysis of the randomized AKIKI trial.
Acute kidney injury
Catheter
Critical care
Renal replacement therapy
Vascular access
Journal
Annals of intensive care
ISSN: 2110-5820
Titre abrégé: Ann Intensive Care
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101562873
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Apr 2021
08 Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
05
01
2021
accepted:
24
03
2021
entrez:
8
4
2021
pubmed:
9
4
2021
medline:
9
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Vascular access for renal replacement therapy (RRT) is routine question in the intensive care unit. Randomized trials comparing jugular and femoral sites have shown similar rate of nosocomial events and catheter dysfunction. However, recent prospective observational data on RRT catheters use are scarce. We aimed to assess the site of RRT catheter, the reasons for catheter replacement, and the complications according to site in a large population of critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. We performed an ancillary study of the AKIKI study, a pragmatic randomized controlled trial, in which patients with severe acute kidney injury (KDIGO 3 classification) with invasive mechanical ventilation, catecholamine infusion or both were randomly assigned to either an early or a delayed RRT initiation strategy. The present study involved all patients who underwent at least one RRT session. Number of RRT catheters, insertion sites, factors potentially associated with the choice of insertion site, duration of catheter use, reason for catheter replacement, and complications were prospectively collected. Among the 619 patients included in AKIKI, 462 received RRT and 459 were finally included, with 598 RRT catheters. Femoral site was chosen preferentially (n = 319, 53%), followed by jugular (n = 256, 43%) and subclavian (n = 23, 4%). In multivariate analysis, continuous RRT modality was significantly associated with femoral site (OR = 2.33 (95% CI (1.34-4.07), p = 0.003) and higher weight with jugular site [88.9 vs 83.2 kg, OR = 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00), p = 0.03]. Investigator site was also significantly associated with the choice of insertion site (p = 0.03). Cumulative incidence of catheter replacement did not differ between jugular and femoral site [sHR 0.90 (95% CI 0.64-1.25), p = 0.67]. Catheter dysfunction was the main reason for replacement (n = 47), followed by suspected infection (n = 29) which was actually seldom proven (n = 4). No mechanical complication (pneumothorax or hemothorax) occurred. Femoral site was preferentially used in this prospective study of RRT catheters in 31 French intensive care units. The choice of insertion site depended on investigating center habits, weight, RRT modality. A high incidence of catheter infection suspicion led to undue replacement.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Vascular access for renal replacement therapy (RRT) is routine question in the intensive care unit. Randomized trials comparing jugular and femoral sites have shown similar rate of nosocomial events and catheter dysfunction. However, recent prospective observational data on RRT catheters use are scarce. We aimed to assess the site of RRT catheter, the reasons for catheter replacement, and the complications according to site in a large population of critically ill patients with acute kidney injury.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
We performed an ancillary study of the AKIKI study, a pragmatic randomized controlled trial, in which patients with severe acute kidney injury (KDIGO 3 classification) with invasive mechanical ventilation, catecholamine infusion or both were randomly assigned to either an early or a delayed RRT initiation strategy. The present study involved all patients who underwent at least one RRT session. Number of RRT catheters, insertion sites, factors potentially associated with the choice of insertion site, duration of catheter use, reason for catheter replacement, and complications were prospectively collected.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Among the 619 patients included in AKIKI, 462 received RRT and 459 were finally included, with 598 RRT catheters. Femoral site was chosen preferentially (n = 319, 53%), followed by jugular (n = 256, 43%) and subclavian (n = 23, 4%). In multivariate analysis, continuous RRT modality was significantly associated with femoral site (OR = 2.33 (95% CI (1.34-4.07), p = 0.003) and higher weight with jugular site [88.9 vs 83.2 kg, OR = 0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00), p = 0.03]. Investigator site was also significantly associated with the choice of insertion site (p = 0.03). Cumulative incidence of catheter replacement did not differ between jugular and femoral site [sHR 0.90 (95% CI 0.64-1.25), p = 0.67]. Catheter dysfunction was the main reason for replacement (n = 47), followed by suspected infection (n = 29) which was actually seldom proven (n = 4). No mechanical complication (pneumothorax or hemothorax) occurred.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Femoral site was preferentially used in this prospective study of RRT catheters in 31 French intensive care units. The choice of insertion site depended on investigating center habits, weight, RRT modality. A high incidence of catheter infection suspicion led to undue replacement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33830370
doi: 10.1186/s13613-021-00843-3
pii: 10.1186/s13613-021-00843-3
pmc: PMC8032839
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
56Subventions
Organisme : Ministère de la Santé, France
ID : AOM12456
Références
Ann Intensive Care. 2015 Dec;5(1):58
pubmed: 26714808
Intensive Care Med. 2018 Jun;44(6):742-759
pubmed: 29754308
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012 Jan;7(1):70-7
pubmed: 22076877
Crit Care. 2015 May 06;19:221
pubmed: 25944032
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Dec 1;176(12):1843-1854
pubmed: 27775764
Multivariate Behav Res. 2011 May;46(3):399-424
pubmed: 21818162
Biometrics. 2007 Sep;63(3):942-6
pubmed: 17403100
Front Med (Lausanne). 2017 Apr 11;4:40
pubmed: 28443283
Ann Intensive Care. 2011 Aug 18;1:34
pubmed: 21906266
Blood Purif. 2019;48(2):175-182
pubmed: 30485840
Blood Purif. 2016;41(1-3):11-7
pubmed: 26485539
Crit Care Med. 2010 Apr;38(4):1118-25
pubmed: 20154599
J Am Soc Nephrol. 1998 Aug;9(8):1507-10
pubmed: 9697674
Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2017 Oct;36(5):313-319
pubmed: 27913268
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 09;1:CD006962
pubmed: 25575244
Am J Infect Control. 2008 Dec;36(10):S171.e1-5
pubmed: 19084146
Ann Intensive Care. 2017 Dec;7(1):49
pubmed: 28474317
Ann Intensive Care. 2012 Nov 23;2(1):48
pubmed: 23174157
Crit Care Med. 2011 Jun;39(6):1556-8
pubmed: 21610620
Nephron Clin Pract. 2004;96(2):c43-7
pubmed: 14988597
JAMA. 2008 May 28;299(20):2413-22
pubmed: 18505951
Intensive Care Med. 2019 Jun;45(6):823-833
pubmed: 30997542
Intensive Care Med. 2019 Jun;45(6):896-897
pubmed: 31089762
Kidney Int. 2012 Mar;81(5):442-8
pubmed: 22113526
N Engl J Med. 2015 Sep 24;373(13):1220-9
pubmed: 26398070
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015 May 1;191(9):1024-32
pubmed: 25668557
Kidney Int. 2016 Mar;89(3):522-4
pubmed: 26880443
Artif Organs. 1994 Apr;18(4):318-21
pubmed: 8024484
Radiology. 2000 Oct;217(1):89-93
pubmed: 11012428
Kidney Int. 2000 Dec;58(6):2543-5
pubmed: 11115089
Crit Care. 2017 Aug 28;21(1):225
pubmed: 28844205
Clin Infect Dis. 2009 Jul 1;49(1):1-45
pubmed: 19489710
N Engl J Med. 2016 Jul 14;375(2):122-33
pubmed: 27181456
Crit Care Med. 2011 Jun;39(6):1301-5
pubmed: 21336118
Am J Infect Control. 2011 May;39(4 Suppl 1):S1-34
pubmed: 21511081
Mayo Clin Proc. 2006 Sep;81(9):1159-71
pubmed: 16970212
Am J Kidney Dis. 2011 Dec;58(6):964-70
pubmed: 22099570
Ann Intensive Care. 2016 Dec;6(1):76
pubmed: 27502195