ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2024
Efficacy of immediate versus delayed renal replacement therapy in septic patients undergoing continuous renal replacement therapy.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the therapeutic efficacy of immediate versus delayed renal replacement therapy (RRT) in septic patients undergoing continuous RRT.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 98 septic patients who received continuous RRT between August 2021 and January 2023. Patients were divided into two groups: RRT group (n=50, immediate RRT) and delayed RRT group (n=48), where RRT was delayed by 48 hours in the absence of renal function recovery. Demographic data, comorbidities, vital signs, laboratory results, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores, and follow-up details were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe RRT group showed significantly lower serum interleukin-6 and creatinine levels at 1, 3, and 5 days of treatment (P=0.006, P=0.021, P=0.007; P=0.016, P=0.006, P=0.021, respectively) compared with the delayed RRT group. Additionally, the RRT group had shorter ICU stays, reduced duration of mechanical ventilation, and lower total treatment costs (P=0.016, P=0.003, P=0.029). Post-treatment, the RRT group exhibited significantly lower APACHE II and SOFA scores (P=0.031, P=0.018), a shorter average ICU stay (P=0.009), and a lower mortality rate (P=0.018) than the delayed RRT group.
conclusionImmediate RRT in septic patients undergoing continuous RRT significantly reduces inflammatory markers, accelerates patient outcome, and decreases short-term mortality compared to delayed treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.