Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36068554›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2022

Renal outcomes according to renal replacement therapy modality and treatment protocol in the ATN and RENAL trials.

Thummaporn Naorungroj, Ary Serpa Neto, Amanda Wang, Martin Gallagher, Rinaldo Bellomo

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT00076219 phase3completednot on this map

CSP #530 - Intensive vs. Conventional Renal Support in Acute Renal Failure

TypeinterventionalSponsorUS Department of Veterans AffairsRan2003 to 2008Enrolled1,124ConditionsAcute Renal FailureArmsrenal replacement therapy
NCT00221013 phase4completednot on this map

Multicentre, Unblinded, Open Label, Randomised, Controlled Trial to Assess the Effect of Augmented Vs. Normal Continuous Renal Replacement Therapy (CRRT) on 90-Day All-Cause Mortality of Intensive Care Unit Patients With Severe Acute Renal Failure (ARF).

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe George InstituteRan2005 to 2009Enrolled1,508ConditionsAcute Renal FailureArms"augmented" CRRT regimen
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Thummaporn NaorungrojDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Austin Hospital, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, Melbourne, VIC, 3084, Australia.
Ary Serpa NetoDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Austin Hospital, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, Melbourne, VIC, 3084, Australia.
Amanda WangThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Martin GallagherThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Rinaldo BellomoDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Austin Hospital, 145 Studley Road, Heidelberg, Melbourne, VIC, 3084, Australia. rinaldo.bellomo@austin.org.au.
Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society · AULiverpool Hospital · AUMahidol University · THThe George Institute for Global Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn critically ill patients with acute kidney injury, renal replacement therapy (RRT) modality and treatment protocols may affect kidney recovery. This study explored whether RRT modality and treatment protocol affected RRT dependence in the 'Randomized Evaluation of Normal versus Augmented Level of RRT' and the 'Acute Renal Failure Trial Network' (ATN) trials.

methodsPrimary outcome was 28-day RRT dependence. Secondary outcomes included RRT dependence among survivors and in different SOFA-based treatment protocol groups. We used the Fine-Gray competing-risk model sub-distribution hazard ratio (SHR) to assess the primary outcome. Analyses were adjusted for confounders.

resultsOf 2542 patients, 2175 (85.5%) received continuous RRT (CRRT) and 367 (14.4%) received intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) as first RRT modality. CRRT-first patients had greater illness severity. After adjustment, there was no between-group difference in 28-day RRT dependence (SHR, 0.96 [95% CI 0.84-1.10]; p = 0.570) or hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.14 [95% CI 0.86-1.52]; p = 0.361) However, among survivors, CRRT-first was associated with decreased 28-day RRT dependence (OR, 0.54 [95% CI 0.37-0.80]; p = 0.002) and more RRT-free days (common OR: 1.38 [95% CI 1.11-1.71]). Moreover, among CRRT-first patient, the ATN treatment protocol was associated with fewer RRT-free days, greater mortality, and a fourfold increase in RRT dependence at day 28.

conclusionsThere was no difference in RRT dependence at day 28 between IHD and CRRT. However, among survivors and after adjustment, both IHD-first and the ATN treatment protocol were strongly associated with greater risk of RRT dependence at 28 days after randomization. Trial registration NCT00221013 registered September 22, 2005, and NCT00076219 registered January 19, 2004.

Indexed as

Acute Kidney InjuryRenal Replacement TherapyClinical ProtocolsCritical IllnessHumansKidneyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRenal DialysisAcute kidney injuryContinuous renal replacement therapyDialysis dependenceIntermittent hemodialysisMortality

Identifiers

PMID36068554
PMCPMC9450407
OpenAlexW4294805162

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.