Search

Objectives: In critically ill patients, acute kidney injury (AKI) and sepsis often coexist. This confounds the assessment of outcomes of both sepsis and AKI in these patients. Hence, in this study, we compare the outcomes of AKI with sepsis, AKI without sepsis, and sepsis without AKI against a control cohort comprising patients with neither AKI nor sepsis. Materials and methods: Prospective observational study conducted in our critical care unit (CCU) between January and July 2009. Data including demographic details, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) III score, presence of AKI, presence of sepsis, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and outcomes were collected for all patients. Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) criteria were used to define the presence of AKI and American College of Critical Care Medicine 2001 definition was used to define the presence of sepsis. Results: A total of 250 patients were included in the study and 8 patients were excluded from analysis as they were discharged from hospital against medical advice. The remaining 242 patients (mean age 52.8 ± 17 years; 61.6% male; APACHE III score: 48.2 ± 24.1) were analyzed, and AKI was seen in 111 patients (45.8%). Among the patients with AKI, 55.8% (62/111) had sepsis and 44.2% (49/111) had nonseptic AKI. There was a higher need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) among patients with septic AKI in comparison to those with nonseptic AKI (19.3% vs 6.1%; p = 0.04), but no mortality difference was seen between the two groups (25.8% vs 20.4%, p = 0.5). Patients with sepsis and AKI had a significantly higher mortality (25.8%) compared to the patients with sepsis alone (5.6%; p < 0.01). Conclusion: Patients with septic AKI had a higher RRT requirement compared to patients with nonseptic AKI, but no significant differences in mortality were seen between the groups. Occurrence of AKI in septic patients substantially increases their mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) outside guideline recommendations is common. We audited use of NIV in our tertiary care critical care unit (CCU) to evaluate appropriateness of use and patient outcomes when used outside level I recommendations. Materials and Methods: Prospective observational study of all patients requiring NIV. Clinical parameters and arterial blood gases were recorded at initiation of NIV and 2 h later (or earlier if clinically warranted). NIV titration and decision to intubate were left to the discretion of treating intensivist. Patients were categorized into two groups: Group 1: Those with level I indications for use of NIV and group 2: All other levels of indications. Patients were followed until hospital discharge. Results: From January 2010 to June 2010, 1120 patients were admitted to the CCU. Of these 106 patients required NIV support with 40.6% (n = 43/106) being in group 1 and 59.4% (n = 63/106) in group 2. Of these 35.8% patients (38/106) failed NIV and required endotracheal intubation. NIV failure rates (41.27% vs. 27.91%; P = 0.02) and mortality (30.6% vs. 18.6%; P = 0.03) were significantly higher in group 2 patients. In a logistic regression analysis Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score (P = 0.02), time on NIV before intubation (P = 0.001) and baseline PaCO2 levels (P = 0.01) were strongly associated with mortality. Conclusion: Noninvasive ventilation failure and mortality rates were signifi cantly higher when used outside level I recommendations. APACHE II score, baseline PaCO2 and duration on NIV prior to intubation were predictors of increased mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]