Nierenersatztherapie auf Intensivstation

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Bei intensivstationär behandelten Patient*innen kommt es regelmäßig zu akuten Nierenfunktionseinschränkungen (AKI), die oft auch den Einsatz apparativer Nierenersatzverfahren nötig machen. Der vorliegende Artikel soll ein verständliches und umfassendes Kompendium des aktuellen Therapiestandards für Nierenersatzverfahren im intensivstationären Kontext mit der Erläuterung der jeweiligen Evidenz darstellen: So werden die verschiedenen verfügbaren Modalitäten (kontinuierliche versus intermittierende Hämodialyseverfahren sowie Peritonealdialyse) vorgestellt und ihre jeweiligen Vor- und Nachteile diskutiert. Dabei wird auch auf die richtigen Bedingungen für eine etwaige Umstellung von kontinuierlichen auf diskontinuierliche Verfahren eingegangen und der damit in Zusammenhang stehenden Problematik der hämodynamischen Instabilität unter einer Nierenersatztherapie. Weiterhin wird die viel diskutierte Frage nach dem richtigen Zeitpunkt des Beginns von Nierenersatzverfahren im Licht der vorhandenen Evidenz kritisch beleuchtet, genauso wie die Frage nach den Voraussetzungen für eine erfolgreiche Beendigung der Nierenersatztherapie. Verschiedene Antikoagulationsstrategien werden vorgestellt, mit besonderem Augenmerk auf die regionale Antikoagulation mit Zitrat, die mittlerweile die bevorzugte Option insbesondere für kontinuierliche Verfahren darstellt. Ebenso wird auf die Bestimmung der adäquaten Dosen je nach Modalität für den/die einzelne/n Patient*in eingegangen. Auch den spezifischen Aspekten von chronischen Dialysepatient*innen auf Intensivstation wird Rechnung getragen.

Publication History

Article published online:
25 June 2024

• Literatur

• 1 Hoste EA, Bagshaw SM, Bellomo R. et al Epidemiology of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: the multinational AKI-EPI study. Intensive Care Med 2015; 41: 1411-1423 DOI: 10.1007/s00134-015-3934-7.
• 2 KDIGO Clinical practice guideline for acute kidney injury. Kidney Int Suppl 2012; 02: 1-138 DOI: 10.1038/kisup.2012.1.
• 3 Khwaja A. KDIGO clinical practice guidelines for acute kidney injury. Nephron Clin Pract 2012; 120: c179-c184 DOI: 10.1159/000339789.
• 4 Bagshaw SM, Wald R, Adhikari NKJ. et al Timing of initiation of renal-replacement therapy in acute kidney injury. N Engl J Med 2020; 383: 240-251 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2000741.
• 5 Gaudry S, Hajage D, Schortgen F. et al Initiation strategies for renal-replacement therapy in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 122-133 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1603017.
• 6 Barbar SD, Clere-Jehl R, Bourredjem A. et al Timing of renal-replacement therapy in patients with acute kidney injury and sepsis. N Engl J Med 2018; 379: 1431-1442 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1803213.
• 7 Zarbock A, Kellum JA, Schmidt C. et al Effect of early vs delayed initiation of renal replacement therapy on mortality in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: the ELAIN randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016; 315: 2190-2199 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.5828.
• 8 Gaudry S, Hajage D, Martin-Lefevre L. et al Comparison of two delayed strategies for renal replacement therapy initiation for severe acute kidney injury (AKIKI 2): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 2021; 397: 1293-1300 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00350-0.
• 9 Koyner JL, Davison DL, Brasha-Mitchell E. et al Furosemide stress test and biomarkers for the prediction of AKI severity. J Am Soc Nephrol 2015; 26: 2023-2031 DOI: 10.1681/asn.2014060535.
• 10 Lumlertgul N, Peerapornratana S, Trakarnvanich T. et al Early versus standard initiation of renal replacement therapy in furosemide stress test non-responsive acute kidney injury patients (the FST trial). Crit Care 2018; 22: 101 DOI: 10.1186/s13054-018-2021-1.
• 11 Nash DM, Przech S, Wald R. et al Systematic review and meta-analysis of renal replacement therapy modalities for acute kidney injury in the intensive care unit. J Crit Care 2017; 41: 138-144 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2017.05.002.
• 12 Yildiz AB, Vehbi S, Covic A. et al An update review on hemodynamic instability in renal replacement therapy patients. Int Urol Nephrol 2023; 55: 929-942 DOI: 10.1007/s11255-022-03389-w.
• 13 Van Bommel E. et al Acute dialytic support for the critically ill: intermittent hemodialysis versus continuous arteriovenous hemodiafiltration. Am J Nephrol 1995; 15: 192-200 DOI: 10.1159/000168832.
• 14 Kruczynski K, Irvine-Bird K, Toffelmire EB. et al A comparison of continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration and intermittent hemodialysis in acute renal failure patients in the intensive care unit. ASAIO J 1993; 39: M778-M781
• 15 Rabindranath K, Adams J, Macleod AM. et al Intermittent versus continuous renal replacement therapy for acute renal failure in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; 03: CD003773 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003773.pub3.
• 16 Arieff AI, Massry SG, Barrientos A. et al Brain water and electrolyte metabolism in uremia: effects of slow and rapid hemodialysis. Kidney Int 1973; 04: 177-187 DOI: 10.1038/ki.1973.100.
• 17 Truche AS, Darmon M, Bailly S. et al Continuous renal replacement therapy versus intermittent hemodialysis in intensive care patients: impact on mortality and renal recovery. Intensive Care Med 2016; 42: 1408-1417 DOI: 10.1007/s00134-016-4404-6.
• 18 Friedrich JO, Wald R, Bagshaw SM. et al Hemofiltration compared to hemodialysis for acute kidney injury: systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 2012; 16: R146 DOI: 10.1186/cc11458.
• 19 Wald R, Beaubien-Souligny W, Chanchlani R. et al Delivering optimal renal replacement therapy to critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Intensive Care Med 2022; 48: 1368-1381 DOI: 10.1007/s00134-022-06851-6.
• 20 Al Sahlawi M, Ponce D, Charytan DM. et al Peritoneal dialysis in critically ill patients: time for a critical reevaluation?. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2023; 18: 512-520 DOI: 10.2215/CJN.0000000000000059.
• 21 Liu L, Zhang L, Liu GJ. et al Peritoneal dialysis for acute kidney injury. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 12: CD011457 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011457.pub2.
• 22 Fisher R, Clarke J, Al-Arfi K. et al Provision of acute renal replacement therapy, using three separate modalities, in critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. An after action review from a UK tertiary critical care centre. J Crit Care 2021; 62: 190-196 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.12.023.
• 23 Zhou X, Dong P, Pan J. et al Renal replacement therapy modality in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury – A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Crit Care 2021; 64: 82-90 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2021.03.011.
• 24 Palevsky PM, Zhang JH, O’Connor TZ. et al Intensity of renal support in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 7-20 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0802639.
• 25 Bellomo R, Cass A, Cole L. et al Intensity of continuous renal-replacement therapy in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1627-1638 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0902413.
• 26 Vesconi S, Cruz DN, Fumagalli R. et al Delivered dose of renal replacement therapy and mortality in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Crit Care 2009; 13: R57 DOI: 10.1186/cc7784.
• 27 Al Rifai A, Sukul N, Wonnacott R. et al Safety of arteriovenous fistulae and grafts for continuous renal replacement therapy: the Michigan experience. Hemodial Int 2018; 22: 50-55 DOI: 10.1111/hdi.12550.
• 28 Bitker L, Bayle F, Yonis H. et al Prevalence and risk factors of hypotension associated with preload-dependence during intermittent hemodialysis in critically ill patients. Crit Care 2016; 20: 44 DOI: 10.1186/s13054-016-1227-3.
• 29 Akhoundi A, Singh B, Vela M. et al Incidence of adverse events during continuous renal replacement therapy. Blood Purif 2015; 39: 333-339 DOI: 10.1159/000380903.
• 30 Douvris A, Zeid K, Hiremath S. et al Mechanisms for hemodynamic instability related to renal replacement therapy: a narrative review. Intensive Care Med 2019; 45: 1333-1346 DOI: 10.1007/s00134-019-05707-w.
• 31 Douvris A, Malhi G, Hiremath S. et al Interventions to prevent hemodynamic instability during renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients: a systematic review. Crit Care 2018; 22: 41 DOI: 10.1186/s13054-018-1965-5.
• 32 Zarbock A, Küllmar M, Kindgen-Milles D. et al Effect of regional citrate anticoagulation vs systemic heparin anticoagulation during continuous kidney replacement therapy on dialysis filter life span and mortality among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2020; 324: 1629-1639 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.18618.
• 33 Zarbock A, Küllmar M, Kindgen-Milles D. et al Effect of regional citrate anticoagulation vs systemic heparin anticoagulation during continuous kidney replacement therapy on dialysis filter life span and mortality among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2020; 324: 1629-1639 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.18618.
• 34 Morgera S, Schneider M, Slowinski T. et al A safe citrate anticoagulation protocol with variable treatment efficacy and excellent control of the acid-base status. Crit Care Med 2009; 37: 2018-2024 DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181a00a92.
• 35 Hetzel GR, Taskaya G, Sucker C. et al Citrate plasma levels in patients under regional anticoagulation in continuous venovenous hemofiltration. Am J Kidney Dis 2006; 48: 806-811 DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2006.07.016.
• 36 Durão MS, Monte JC, Batista MC. et al The use of regional citrate anticoagulation for continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration in acute kidney injury. Crit Care Med 2008; 36: 3024-3029 DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31818b9100.
• 37 Ostermann M, Bellomo R, Burdmann EA. et al Controversies in acute kidney injury: conclusions from a Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Conference. Kidney Int 2020; 98: 294-309 DOI: 10.1016/j.kint.2020.04.020.
• 38 Baeg SI, Jeon J, Yoo H. et al A scoring model with simple clinical parameters to predict successful discontinuation of continuous renal replacement therapy. Blood Purif 2021; 50: 779-789 DOI: 10.1159/000512350.
• 39 Liu C, Peng Z, Dong Y. et al Predicting successful continuous renal replacement therapy liberation in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. J Crit Care 2021; 66: 6-13 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2021.07.020.