Do patients undergoing renal revascularization outside of the ASTRAL trial show any benefit? Results of a single-centre observational study.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: Though recent research has concluded that revascularization of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis has no benefit for most patients, negative findings of the Angioplasty and STent for Renal Artery Lesions (ASTRAL) trial have been criticized in professional fora. Aim of the current study was to determine whether patients undergoing renal revascularization outside of ASTRAL showed any benefit. If so, could we determine a patient group that would benefit from intervention? METHODS: Patients undergoing renal revascularization outside of the ASTRAL trial between 2003 and 2007 at our institution were reviewed. The primary comparison was the rate of decline of renal function based on individual reciprocal creatinine plots for the periods leading up to and following revascularization. Those who showed any improvement in the mean slope were compared to those with a negative or neutral response. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-seven patients underwent renal revascularization outside of ASTRAL. The majority [79 (62%)] showed some improvement in the rate of change in renal function, though overall this failed to reach statistical significance. Those who responded positively tended to be declining faster prior to intervention; they were less likely to require RRT (6 versus 29%), and if they did, it was significantly later (3.6 versus 0.7 years). Mortality was, however, similar in both groups. Subgroup analysis was undertaken of patients in whom kidney function was rapidly deteriorating prior to revascularization. The rate of change in this group showed a more sizeable improvement (P = 0.05). Nonetheless, a similar proportion of both groups required RRT and there was no evidence of improvement in overall mortality. CONCLUSION: In keeping with ASTRAL's findings, our use of renal revascularization has produced no demonstrable benefit overall. There was a suggestion of benefit in patients with rapidly declining renal function in terms of delaying the need for renal replacement therapy, but improvements in cardiovascular outcomes have yet to be proven.

Care bundles for acute kidney injury: a balanced accounting of the impact of implementation in an acute medical unit.

In 2009, a National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death report detailed significant shortcomings in recognition and management of patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). As part of a national collaborative to reduce harm from AKI, the Scottish Patient Safety Programme developed two care bundles to improve response ('SHOUT') and review ('BUMP') of AKI. Baseline data from eight patients with AKI on the acute medical unit (AMU) in Ninewells Hospital showed 62% compliance with SHOUT. However, most patients were transferred from AMU within 24 hours so BUMP could not be assessed. Our aim was to achieve >95% compliance with SHOUT on AMU within 2 months. The content of the SHOUT bundle was condensed onto a sticker for the case notes, which was implemented using Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. Compliance was assessed weekly and feedback obtained from stakeholders concerning their opinion of the sticker, SHOUT bundle and care bundles in general. Use of the sticker was 27% in week 1 but fell to 5% by week 4. Compliance with the bundle varied from 45% to 60% and was only slightly improved by use of the sticker (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.39 to 6.42). Staff found the sticker burdensome and did not agree that all elements of SHOUT were equally important. This opinion was supported by finding that their compliance with sepsis and hypovolaemia recommendations was 91%-100% throughout, whereas urinalysis was documented in only 55%-63% of patients. Several staff mentioned 'bundle fatigue' and on one day we identified 22 other care bundles or structured improvement forms in AMU. We concluded that the AMU staff had legitimate concerns about the SHOUT care bundle and that our intervention was demotivating. Overcoming bundle fatigue will not be a simple task. We plan to work with staff on integrating AKI into patient safety huddles and on using modelling and recognition of good practice to improve motivation.