Costs and consequences of acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery: A cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is common after cardiac surgery. We quantified the mortality and costs of varying degrees of AKI using a population-based cohort in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: A cohort of patients undergoing cardiac surgery from 2004 to 2009 was assembled from linked Alberta administrative databases. AKI was classified by Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes stages of severity. Our outcomes were in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and costs; among survivors, we also examined mortality and costs at 365 days. Estimates were adjusted for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and other covariates. RESULTS: Ten thousand one hundred seventy participants were included, of whom 9771 patients were discharged to community. Overall in-hospital mortality, costs, and length of stay were 4%, 7 days, and Can $34,000, respectively. Postcardiac surgery, AKI occurred in 25%. Compared with those without AKI, AKI was independently associated with increased in-hospital mortality across severity categories, with the highest risk (adjusted odds ratio, 37.1; 95% confidence interval, 26.3-52.1; P < .001) in patients who required acute dialysis. AKI severity was associated with increased hospital days and costs, with costs ranging from 1.21 for stage 1 AKI (95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.23) to 2.74 for acute dialysis (95% confidence interval, 2.49-3.00) (P < .001) times higher than in patients without AKI, after covariate adjustment. Postdischarge to 365 days, patients with AKI continued to experience increased costs up to 1.35-fold, and patients who required dialysis acutely continued to experience a 2.86-fold increased mortality. CONCLUSIONS: AKI remains an important indicator of mortality and health care costs postcardiac surgery.

A Mixed Method Investigation to Determine Priorities for Improving Information, Interaction, and Individualization of Care Among Individuals on In-center Hemodialysis: The Triple I Study.

BACKGROUND: Current health systems do not effectively address all aspects of chronic care. For better self-management of disease, kidney patients have identified the need for improved health care information, interaction with health care providers, and individualization of care. OBJECTIVE: The Triple I study examined challenges to exchange of information, interaction between patients and health care providers and individualization of care in in-center hemodialysis with the aim of identifying the top 10 challenges that individuals on in-center hemodialysis face in these 3 areas. DESIGN: We employed a sequential mixed methods approach with 3 phases:1. A qualitative study with focus groups and interviews (Apr 2017 to Aug 2018);2. A cross-sectional national ranking survey (Jan 2019 to May 2019);3. A prioritization workshop using a modified James Lind Alliance process (June 2019). SETTING: In-center hemodialysis units in 7 academic centers across Canada: Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montreal, and Halifax. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals receiving in-center hemodialysis, their caregivers, and health care providers working in in-center hemodialysis participated in each of the 3 phases. METHODS: In Phase 1, we collected qualitative data through (1) focus groups and interviews with hemodialysis patients and their caregivers and (2) individual interviews with health care providers and decision makers. Participants identified challenges to in-center hemodialysis care and potential solutions to these challenges. In Phase 2, we administered a pan-Canadian cross-sectional ranking survey. The survey asked respondents to prioritize the challenges to in-center hemodialysis care identified in Phase 1 by ranking their top 5 topics/challenges in each of the 3 "I" categories. In Phase 3, we undertook a face-to-face priority setting workshop which followed a modified version of the James Lind Alliance priority setting workshop process. The workshop employed an iterative process incorporating small and large group sessions during which participants identified, ranked, and voted on the top challenges and innovations to hemodialysis care. Four patient partners contributed to study design, implementation, analysis, and interpretation. RESULTS: Across the 5 participating centers, we conducted 8 focus groups and 44 interviews, in which 113 participants identified 45 distinct challenges to in-center hemodialysis care. Subsequently, completion of a national ranking survey (n = 323) of these challenges resulted in a short-list of the top 30 challenges. Finally, using small and large group sessions to develop consensus during the prioritizing workshop, 38 stakeholders used this short-list to identify the top 10 challenges to in-center hemodialysis care. These included individualization of dialysis-related education; improved information in specific topic areas (transplant status, dialysis modalities, dialysis-related complications, and other health risks); more flexibility in hemodialysis scheduling; better communication and continuity of care within the health care team; and increased availability of transportation, financial, and social support programs. LIMITATIONS: Participants were from urban centers and were predominately English-speaking. Survey response rate of 31.5% in Phase 2 may have led to selection bias. We collected limited information on social determinants of health, which could confound our results. CONCLUSION: Overall, the challenges we identified demonstrate that individualized care and information that improves interaction with health care providers is important to patients receiving in-center hemodialysis. In future stages of this project, we will aim to address these challenges by trialing innovative patient-centered solutions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

CONTEXTE: Les systèmes de santé actuels ne traitent pas efficacement tous les aspects des soins aux malades chroniques. Pour mieux autogérer la maladie, les patients atteints de néphropathies expriment un besoin de personnalisation des soins et d'informations de santé facilitant les interactions avec leurs soignants. OBJECTIF: L'étude Triple I s'est penchée sur l'échange d'information, l'interaction entre les patients et les soignants et la personnalisation des soins en hémodialyse en center. Nous souhaitions cerner les dix principaux défis auxquels font face les patients dans ces trois secteurs. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Nous avons procédé en trois phases selon une approche séquentielle à méthodes mixtes:1. étude qualitative avec groupes échantillons et entretiens individuels (avril 2017 à août 2018);2. sondage de classement transversal au niveau national (janvier à mai 2019);3. atelier consacré à la définition des priorités utilisant une version modifiée du James Lind Alliance process (juin 2019). CADRE: Les unités d'hémodialyse de sept centres hospitaliers universitaires à travers le Canada (Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Montréal et Halifax). PARTICIPANTS: Des patients hémodialysés en centre, leurs soignants et des fournisseurs de soins travaillant dans les unités d'hémodialyse ont participé à chacune des trois phases. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Au cours de la phase 1, nous avons recueilli des données qualitatives par l'entremise 1) de groupes échantillons et d'entretiens avec des patients hémodialysés et leurs soignants, et 2) d'entretiens individuels avec des fournisseurs de soins et des décideurs. Les participants ont mis en évidence les défis liés aux soins d'hémodialyse en centre et les possibles solutions à ceux-ci. Pour la phase 2, nous avons procédé à un sondage de classement transversal pancanadien où les répondants devaient classer par ordre de priorité les difficultés recensées au cours de la phase 1. Les répondants devaient classer leurs cinq principaux défis dans chacune des trois catégories établies lors de la phase 1. La phase 3 a consisté en un atelier d'établissement des priorités selon une version modifiée du processus de la James Lind Alliance. Pour cet atelier, nous avons utilisé un processus itératif comportant des séances en petits et grands groupes au cours desquelles les participants ont identifié, classé et voté sur les principaux défis et innovations en matière de soins d'hémodialyse. Quatre patients partenaires ont contribué à la conception de l'étude, à sa mise en œuvre, de même qu'à l'analyse et à l'interprétation des résultats. RÉSULTATS: Dans les cinq sites ayant participé à la phase 1, nous avons mené 8 groupes de discussion et 44 interviews au cours desquels 113 participants ont mentionné 45 défis distincts liés aux soins d'HD en centre. Par la suite (phase 2), la complétion d'un sondage de classement national (n=323) de ces défis a mené à une liste restreinte de 30 difficultés. Puis, lors de l'atelier visant le dégagement d'un consensus (phase 3), 38 intervenants ont utilisé cette courte liste lors de séances en petits et grands groupes pour s'entendre sur les 10 principaux défis des soins d'hémodialyse en centre. Cette courte liste incluait notamment des besoins pour i) une éducation personnalisée sur la dialyse; ii) des informations de meilleure qualité sur certains sujets précis (transplantation, modalités de dialyse, complications liées à la dialyse et autres risques pour la santé); iii) plus de flexibilité dans les horaires de dialyse; iv) une meilleure communication et continuité dans les soins au sein des équipes soignantes; et v) une plus grande disponibilité des programmes de transport, de soutien financier et de soutien social. LIMITES: La majorité des participants provenait de centres urbains et s'exprimait en anglais. Le taux de réponse au sondage de la phase 2 était de 31,5 %, ce qui pourrait avoir entraîné des biais de sélection. Nous avons recueilli peu d'information sur les déterminants sociaux de santé, ce qui pourrait brouiller nos résultats. CONCLUSION: Dans l'ensemble, les enjeux soulevés démontrent que l'individualisation des soins et l'échange d'informations facilitant les interactions avec les fournisseurs de soins sont importants pour les patients hémodialysés en centre. Pour la suite de ce projet, nous tenterons de surmonter ces défis par l'expérimentation de solutions innovantes axées sur les patients.

Clinical Decision Support to Reduce Contrast-Induced Kidney Injury During Cardiac Catheterization: Design of a Randomized Stepped-Wedge Trial.

BACKGROUND: Contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) is a common and serious complication of invasive cardiac procedures. Quality improvement programs have been associated with a lower incidence of CI-AKI over time, but there is a lack of high-quality evidence on clinical decision support for prevention of CI-AKI and its impact on processes of care and clinical outcomes. METHODS: The Contrast-Reducing Injury Sustained by Kidneys (Contrast RISK) study will implement an evidence-based multifaceted intervention designed to reduce the incidence of CI-AKI, encompassing automated identification of patients at increased risk for CI-AKI, point-of-care information on safe contrast volume targets, personalized recommendations for hemodynamic optimization of intravenous fluids, and follow-up information for patients at risk. Implementation will use cardiologist academic detailing, computerized clinical decision support, and audit and feedback. All 31 physicians practicing in all 3 of Alberta's cardiac catheterization laboratories will participate using a cluster-randomized stepped-wedge design. The order in which they are introduced to this intervention will be randomized within 8 clusters. The primary outcome is CI-AKI incidence, with secondary outcomes of CI-AKI avoidance strategies and downstream adverse major kidney and cardiovascular events. An economic evaluation will accompany the main trial. CONCLUSIONS: The Contrast RISK study leverages information technology systems to identify patient risk combined with evidence-based protocols, audit, and feedback to reduce CI-AKI in cardiac catheterization laboratories across Alberta. If effective, this intervention can be broadly scaled and sustained to improve the safety of cardiac catheterization.

Comparison of the Complexity of Patients Seen by Different Medical Subspecialists in a Universal Health Care System.

Importance: Clinical experience suggests that there are substantial differences in patient complexity across medical specialties, but empirical data are lacking. Objective: To compare the complexity of patients seen by different types of physician in a universal health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants: Population-based retrospective cohort study of 2 597 127 residents of the Canadian province of Alberta aged 18 years and older with at least 1 physician visit between April 1, 2014 and March 31, 2015. Data were analyzed in September 2018. Exposures: Type of physician seeing each patient (family physician, general internist, or 11 types of medical subspecialist) assessed as non-mutually exclusive categories. Main Outcomes and Measures: Nine markers of patient complexity (number of comorbidities, presence of mental illness, number of types of physicians involved in each patient's care, number of physicians involved in each patient's care, number of prescribed medications, number of emergency department visits, rate of death, rate of hospitalization, rate of placement in a long-term care facility). Results: Among the 2 597 127 participants, the median (interquartile range) age was 46 (32-59) years and 54.1% were female. Over 1 year of follow-up, 21 792 patients (0.8%) died, the median (range) number of days spent in the hospital was 0 (0-365), 8.1% of patients had at least 1 hospitalization, and the median (interquartile range) number of prescribed medications was 3 (1-7). When the complexity markers were considered individually, patients seen by nephrologists had the highest mean number of comorbidities (4.2; 95% CI, 4.2-4.3 vs [lowest] 1.1; 95% CI, 1.0-1.1), highest mean number of prescribed medications (14.2; 95% CI, 14.2-14.3 vs [lowest] 4.9; 95% CI, 4.9-4.9), highest rate of death (6.6%; 95% CI, 6.3%-6.9% vs [lowest] 0.1%; 95% CI, <0.1%-0.2%), and highest rate of placement in a long-term care facility (2.0%; 95% CI, 1.8%-2.2% vs [lowest] <0.1%; 95% CI, <0.1%-0.1%). Patients seen by infectious disease specialists had the highest complexity as assessed by the other 5 markers: rate of a mental health condition (29%; 95% CI, 28%-29% vs [lowest] 14%; 95% CI, 14%-14%), mean number of physician types (5.5; 95% CI, 5.5-5.6 vs [lowest] 2.1; 95% CI, 2.1-2.1), mean number of physicians (13.0; 95% CI, 12.9-13.1 vs [lowest] 3.8; 95% CI, 3.8-3.8), mean days in hospital (15.0; 95% CI, 14.9-15.0 vs [lowest] 0.4; 95% CI, 0.4-0.4), and mean emergency department visits (2.6; 95% CI, 2.6-2.6 vs [lowest] 0.5; 95% CI, 0.5-0.5). When types of physician were ranked according to patient complexity across all 9 markers, the order from most to least complex was nephrologist, infectious disease specialist, neurologist, respirologist, hematologist, rheumatologist, gastroenterologist, cardiologist, general internist, endocrinologist, allergist/immunologist, dermatologist, and family physician. Conclusion and Relevance: Substantial differences were found in 9 different markers of patient complexity across different types of physician, including medical subspecialists, general internists, and family physicians. These findings have implications for medical education and health policy.

Health Care Costs Associated with AKI.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: An understanding of the health care resource use associated with AKI is needed to frame the investment and cost-effectiveness of strategies to prevent AKI and promote kidney recovery. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: We assembled population-based cohort of adults hospitalized in Alberta between November of 2002 and March of 2009 without ESRD or an eGFR<15 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Outpatient serum creatinine measurements 6 months preceding admission defined baseline kidney function, and serum creatinine during the first 14 days of hospitalization defined Acute Kidney Injury Network stage; kidney recovery defined as serum creatinine within 25% of baseline and independence from dialysis was assessed at 90 days after AKI. Health care utilization and costs (in 2015 Canadian dollars) were determined from inpatient, outpatient, and physician claims datasets during the index hospitalization, recovery period (90 days post-AKI assessment), and 3-12 months post-AKI. A fully adjusted generalized linear model regression analysis was used to estimate costs associated with AKI. RESULTS: Of 239,906 hospitalized subjects, 25,495 (10.6%), 4598 (1.9%), 2493 (1.0%), and 670 (0.3%) had Acute Kidney Injury Network stages 1, 2, 3 without dialysis, and 3 with dialysis, respectively. Greater severity of AKI was associated with incremental increases in length of stay (+2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.4 to 4.3 to +7.4; 95% confidence interval, 7.2 to 7.5 days) and costs (+$3779; 95% confidence interval, $3555 to $4004 to +$18,291; 95% confidence interval, $15,573 to $21,009 Canadian dollars) from admission to recovery assessment (3 months). At months 3-12 postadmission, compared with subjects without AKI, AKI with kidney recovery and AKI without kidney recovery were associated with incremental costs of +$2912-$3231 and +$6035-$8563 Canadian dollars, respectively. The estimated incremental cost of AKI in Canada is estimated to be over $200 million Canadian dollars per year. CONCLUSIONS: Severity of AKI, need for dialysis, and lack of kidney recovery are associated with significant health care costs in hospitalized patients and persist a year after admission. Strategies to identify, prevent, and facilitate kidney recovery are needed.

Acute kidney injury: an increasing global concern.

Despite an increasing incidence of acute kidney injury in both high-income and low-income countries and growing insight into the causes and mechanisms of disease, few preventive and therapeutic options exist. Even small acute changes in kidney function can result in short-term and long-term complications, including chronic kidney disease, end-stage renal disease, and death. Presence of more than one comorbidity results in high severity of illness scores in all medical settings. Development or progression of chronic kidney disease after one or more episode of acute kidney injury could have striking socioeconomic and public health outcomes for all countries. Concerted international action encompassing many medical disciplines is needed to aid early recognition and management of acute kidney injury.

Health care costs of peritoneal dialysis technique failure and dialysis modality switching.

BACKGROUND: Although there is a strong economic rationale in favor of peritoneal dialysis (PD) over hemodialysis (HD), the potentially costly effect of PD technique failure is an important consideration in PD program promotion that is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: Incident dialysis patients were categorized by initial and subsequent modality changes during the first year of dialysis and tracked for inpatient and outpatient costs, physician claims, and medication costs for 3 years using merged administrative data sets. We determined unadjusted and adjusted total cumulative costs for each modality group using multivariable linear regression models. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: All incident dialysis patients from Alberta in 1999-2003. OUTCOMES: 3-year mean adjusted total cumulative costs. MEASUREMENTS: Mean direct health care costs by modality group determined using patient-level resource utilization data. RESULTS: 3-year adjusted total cumulative costs for patients in the PD-only and HD-to-PD groups were $58,724 (95% CI, $44,123-$73,325) and $114,503 (95% CI, $96,318-$132,688), respectively, compared with $175,996 (95% CI, $134,787-$217,205) for HD only. PD technique failure was associated with lower costs by $11,466 (95% CI, $248-$22,964) at 1 year compared with HD only; however, costs were similar at 3 years. Costs drivers in PD technique failure arose primarily from costs of dialysis provision, hospitalization, medications, and physician fees. LIMITATIONS: This analysis is taken from the perspective of the health payer, and costs that are outside the health care system are not measured. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients who receive only HD, those who received PD only and those who transitioned from HD to PD therapy had significantly lower total health care costs at 1 and 3 years. Patients experiencing PD technique failure had costs similar and not in excess of HD-only patients at 3 years, further supporting the economic rationale for a PD-first policy in all eligible patients.

Economic analysis of epoetin alfa in critically ill trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Recent randomized control trials (RCTs) suggest that epoetin alfa reduces mortality in critically ill trauma patients; however, epoetin alfa is also costly and associated with adverse events. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of epoetin alfa in surgical trauma patients in an intensive care unit setting. METHODS: We constructed a decision analytic model to compare adjunctive use of epoetin alfa with standard care in trauma patients from the perspective of a Canadian payer. Baseline risks of events, relative efficacy, and resource use were obtained from RCTs and observational studies. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted and longer time horizons explored through Markov models. RESULTS: Epoetin alfa was associated with a cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of $89,958 compared with standard care at 1 year. One-way sensitivity analyses indicated that results were sensitive to plausible ranges of mortality risk, risk of thrombosis, relative risk of mortality, relative risk of thrombosis, and quality of life estimates. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves generated from probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the probability that epoetin alfa would be considered attractive ranged from 0% to 85% over a willingness-to-pay range of $25,000 to $120,000/QALY. Consideration of lifetime time horizons reduced the cost per QALY gained to $7,203, but results were sensitive to the effect of epoetin alfa on mortality. CONCLUSION: Although the cost per QALY gained with epoetin alfa use may fall into an acceptable range, there is significant uncertainty about its true cost-effectiveness. If data regarding long-term efficacy and safety are confirmed in future trials, epoetin alfa could potentially be cost-effective in this population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic analysis, level I.

Incidence and consequences of acute kidney injury in kidney transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: In the nontransplant setting, acute kidney injury (AKI) may lead to chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease, but the epidemiology of AKI in transplant recipients has not been characterized. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence and consequences of AKI in kidney transplant recipients outside the peritransplant period and unrelated to acute rejection. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective longitudinal cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 27,232 adult Medicare-insured transplant recipients with transplant survival of 6 months or longer in the US Renal Data System in 1995-2000. PREDICTORS: International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) hospital discharge diagnostic codes were used to identify AKI during the first 3 posttransplant years. OUTCOMES: Transplant loss from any cause, mortality (death with a functioning transplant), and death-censored transplant loss. MEASUREMENTS: Estimated glomerular filtration rate calculated by the MDRD (Modification of Diet in Renal Disease) Study equation 6 months posttransplant. RESULTS: 3,066 (11.3%) patients had 4,181 hospitalizations with AKI, of which 14.8% required dialysis therapy. The incidence of AKI more than doubled during the study, and AKI was more frequent in patients with lower levels of transplant function. AKI was associated independently with increased risk of transplant loss from any cause (HR, 2.74; 95% CI, 2.56-2.92), death with a functioning transplant (HR, 2.36; 95% CI, 2.14-2.60), and death-censored transplant loss (HR, 3.17; 95% CI, 2.91-3.46). However, AKI-associated risks paradoxically were higher in patients with earlier CKD stage. LIMITATIONS: Because of the limited sensitivity of ICD-9-CM codes for non-dialysis-requiring AKI events, the overall incidence of AKI likely is underestimated in this study. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that AKI is increasingly common and associated with transplant failure and death. Later CKD stage increases the risk of AKI, but AKI-associated risks of transplant failure were greater in those with higher levels of kidney function (earlier CKD stage).

Economic evaluation of continuous renal replacement therapy in acute renal failure.

OBJECTIVES: Controversy exists regarding the optimal method of providing dialysis in critically ill patients with acute renal failure. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies. METHODS: Adult subjects requiring renal replacement therapy in a critical care setting who are candidates for intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) or continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) were considered within a Markov model. Alternative strategies including IHD, and standard or high dose CRRT were compared. The model considered relevant clinical and economic outcomes, and incorporated data on clinical effectiveness from a recent systematic review and high quality micro-costing data. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, CRRT was associated with similar health outcomes but higher costs by ($3,679 more than IHD per patient). In scenarios considering alternate cost sources, and higher intensity of IHD (including daily and longer duration IHD), CRRT remained more costly. Sensitivity analysis indicated that even small differences in the risk of mortality or need for long-term chronic dialysis therapy among surviving patients benefits led to dramatic changes in the cost-effectiveness of the modalities considered. CONCLUSIONS: Given the higher costs of providing CRRT and absence of demonstrated benefit, IHD is the preferred modality in critically ill patients who are candidates for either IHD or CRRT, although this conclusion should be revisited if future clinical trials establish differences in clinical effectiveness between modalities. Future interventions that are proven to improve renal recovery after acute renal failure are likely to be cost-effective, even if very resource intensive.

Cost-effectiveness of hemofiltration to prevent contrast nephropathy in patients with chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: Prophylactic hemofiltration has been reported, in one study, to reduce renal complications and death but necessitates additional up-front health care resource deployment in a critical care setting. We sought to explore the potential scope and cost-effectiveness of this strategy. DESIGN: Economic evaluation using decision analysis. SETTING: Tertiary or quaternary care hospital. PATIENTS: Subjects undergoing angiography at risk for developing contrast nephropathy. INTERVENTION: Prophylactic hemofiltration was compared with intravenous saline. Secondary models incorporated sodium bicarbonate and N-acetylcysteine as comparators. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: The cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with hemofiltration compared with intravenous saline in high-risk subjects (mean serum creatinine, 265 micromol/L) was 3,900 US dollars. This finding was sensitive to variations in several important variables. For instance, the cost-effectiveness ratio became less attractive (i.e., >50,000 US dollars/QALY) when hemofiltration was used in lower-risk subjects (serum creatinine, <265 micromol/L). The cost-effectiveness remained <50,000 US dollars/QALY provided that the relative risk of hemofiltration compared with saline alone was below 0.65 (reported relative risk, 0.10). Although based on indirect comparison of clinical efficacy, when N-acetylcysteine or sodium bicarbonate was used as the comparator, the cost per QALY gained for hemofiltration became markedly less attractive (50,100 US dollars and >1,000,000 US dollars), although the relative effectiveness of these three strategies strongly influenced the results. CONCLUSIONS: Use of prophylactic hemofiltration in patients at high risk for contrast nephropathy may be potentially cost-effective only if certain conditions are satisfied, and its attractiveness is materially diminished when compared to other strategies. As this invasive therapy would entail certain immediate resource outlay, before considering its implementation it is crucial to confirm the clinical effectiveness and health care resource consequences of hemofiltration relative to current standards of care in future studies.