Net Ultrafiltration Prescription and Practice Among Critically Ill Patients Receiving Renal Replacement Therapy: A Multinational Survey of Critical Care Practitioners
- 1 February 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Critical Care Medicine
- Vol. 48 (2), e87-e97
- https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000004092
Abstract
To assess the attitudes of practitioners with respect to net ultrafiltration prescription and practice among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury treated with renal replacement therapy. Multinational internet-assisted survey. Critical care practitioners involved with 14 societies in 80 countries. Intensivists, nephrologists, advanced practice providers, ICU and dialysis nurses. A cross-sectional survey. Of 2,567 practitioners who initiated the survey, 1,569 (61.1%) completed the survey. Most practitioners were intensivists (72.7%) with a median duration of 13.2 years of practice (interquartile range, 7.2–22.0 yr). Two third of practitioners (71.0%; regional range, 55.0–95.5%) reported using continuous renal replacement therapy with a net ultrafiltration rate prescription of median 80.0 mL/hr (interquartile range, 49.0–111.0 mL/hr) for hemodynamically unstable and a maximal rate of 299.0 mL/hr (interquartile range, 200.0–365.0 mL/hr) for hemodynamically stable patients, with regional variation. Only a third of practitioners (31.5%; range, 13.7–47.8%) assessed hourly net fluid balance during continuous renal replacement therapy. Hemodynamic instability was reported in 20% (range, 20–38%) of patients and practitioners decreased the rate of fluid removal (70.3%); started or increased the dose of a vasopressor (51.5%); completely stopped fluid removal (35.8%); and administered a fluid bolus (31.6%), with significant regional variation. Compared with physicians, nurses were most likely to report patient intolerance to net ultrafiltration (73.4% vs 81.3%; p = 0.002), frequent interruptions (40.4% vs 54.5%; p < 0.001), and unavailability of trained staff (11.9% vs 15.6%; p = 0.04), whereas physicians reported unavailability of dialysis machines (14.3% vs 6.1%; p < 0.001) and costs associated with treatment as barriers (12.1% vs 3.0%; p < 0.001) with significant regional variation. Our study provides new knowledge about the presence and extent of international practice variation in net ultrafiltration. We also identified barriers and specific targets for quality improvement initiatives. Our data reflect the need for evidence-based practice guidelines for net ultrafiltration.This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- A controlled trial of electronic automated advisory vital signs monitoring in general hospital wards*Critical Care Medicine, 2012
- ForewordKidney International Supplements, 2012
- Rapid fluid removal during dialysis is associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortalityKidney International, 2011
- A systematic review of the impact of sedation practice in the ICU on resource use, costs and patient safetyCritical Care, 2010
- Fluid accumulation, survival and recovery of kidney function in critically ill patients with acute kidney injuryKidney International, 2009
- A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of cliniciansCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2008
- A positive fluid balance is associated with a worse outcome in patients with acute renal failureCritical Care, 2008
- Association between high ultrafiltration rates and mortality in uraemic patients on regular haemodialysis. A 5-year prospective observational multicentre studyNephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 2007
- Longer treatment time and slower ultrafiltration in hemodialysis: Associations with reduced mortality in the DOPPSKidney International, 2006
- Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES)Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2004