RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The influence of socioeconomic deprivation on health inequalities is established, but its effect on critically ill patients remains unclear, due to inconsistent definitions in previous studies. METHODS: Prospective multicenter cohort study conducted from March to June 2018 in eight ICUs in the Greater Paris area. All admitted patients aged ≥ 18 years were enrolled. Socioeconomic phenotypes were identified using hierarchical clustering, based on education, health insurance, income, and housing. Association of phenotypes with 180-day mortality was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: A total of 1,748 patients were included. Median age was 62.9 [47.4-74.5] years, 654 (37.4%) patients were female, and median SOFA score was 3 [1-6]. Study population was clustered in five phenotypes with increasing socioeconomic deprivation. Patients from phenotype A (n = 958/1,748, 54.8%) were without socioeconomic deprivation, patients from phenotype B (n = 273/1,748, 15.6%) had only lower education levels, phenotype C patients (n = 117/1,748, 6.7%) had a cumulative burden of 1[1-2] deprivations and all had housing deprivation, phenotype D patients had 2 [1-2] deprivations, all of them with income deprivation, and phenotype E patients (n = 93/1,748, 5.3%) included patients with 3 [2-4] deprivations and included all patients with health insurance deprivation. Patients from phenotypes D and E were younger, had fewer comorbidities, more alcohol and opiate use, and were more frequently admitted due to self-harm diagnoses. Patients from phenotype C (predominant housing deprivation), were more frequently admitted with diagnoses related to chronic respiratory diseases and received more non-invasive positive pressure ventilation. Following adjustment for age, sex, alcohol and opiate use, socioeconomic phenotypes were not associated with increased 180-day mortality: phenotype A (reference); phenotype B (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval CI 0.65-1.12); phenotype C (HR, 0.56; 95% CI 0.34-0.93); phenotype D (HR, 1.09; 95% CI 0.78-1.51); phenotype E (HR, 1.20; 95% CI 0.73-1.96). CONCLUSIONS: In a universal health care system, the most deprived socioeconomic phenotypes were not associated with increased 180-day mortality. The most disadvantaged populations exhibit distinct characteristics and medical conditions that may be addressed through targeted public health interventions.
RESUMO
Kidney replacement therapy (KRT) plays a major role in the treatment of severe AKI. Intermittent hemodialysis (HD) and continuous KRT (CKRT) are the main modalities in critically ill patients with AKI. CKRT is the preferred modality in many countries because of its alleged superiority on both hemodynamic tolerance and on kidney function recovery. In fact, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the two modalities have not shown any actual benefit of one technique over the other on mortality, hemodynamics, or kidney function recovery. Those RCTs were conducted more than 15 years ago. Major progress was eventually made leading to much lower mortality rates in recent studies than in previous studies. In addition, those RCTs included a noticeable proportion of patients who could have recovered without ever receiving KRT, as demonstrated by several recent studies. In the absence of evidence of clinical superiority of one KRT modality, the choice must be addressed not only regarding clinical outcome but also resources and logistics. Conclusions of health technology assessments and study reports were heterogeneous and conflicting concerning cost-effectiveness of intermittent HD versus CKRT. All these considerations justify a reevaluation of the issue in new RCTs that take into account recent knowledge on KRT initiation and management. Pending results of such study, the choice should be guided mainly by organizational considerations in each unit and without condemning any modality in the absence of proof.
