Prevalence and Risk Factors for Augmented Renal Clearance in a Population of Critically Ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients show a high, albeit variable, prevalence of augmented renal clearance (ARC). This condition has relevant consequences on the elimination of hydrophilic drugs. Knowledge of risk factors for ARC helps in the early identification of ARC. The aims of this study were evaluation of (1) risk factors for ARC and (2) the prevalence of ARC in critically ill patients over a period of 1 year. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed for all consecutive patients admitted to our intensive care unit (ICU). Augmented renal clearance was defined by a creatinine clearance ≥130 mL/min/1.73 m2. "Patient with ARC" was defined as a patient with a median of creatinine clearance ≥130 mL/min/1.73 m2 over the period of admission. Four variables were tested, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II), male gender, age, and trauma as cause for ICU admission. An analysis (patient based and clearance based) was performed with logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 475 patients, 446 were included in this study, contributing to 454 ICU admissions and 5586 8-hour creatinine clearance (8h-CLCR). Overall, the prevalence of patients with ARC was 24.9% (n = 113). In a subset of patients with normal serum creatinine levels, the prevalence was 43.0% (n = 104). Of the set of all 8h-CLCR measurements, 25.4% (1418) showed ARC. In the patient-based analysis, the adjusted odds ratio was: 2.0 (confidence interval [CI]:1.1-3.7; P < .05), 0.93 (CI: 0.91-0.94; P < .01), 2.7 (CI: 1.4-5.3; P < .01), and 0.98 (CI: 0.96 -1.01; P = .15), respectively, for trauma, age, male sex, and SAPS II. In the clearance-based analysis, the adjusted odds ratio were 1.7 (CI: 1.4-1.9; P < .01), 0.94 (CI: 0.932-0.942; P < .01), and 2.9 (CI: 2.4-3.4; P < .01), respectively, for trauma, age, and male sex. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma, young age, and male sex were independent risk factors for ARC. This condition occurs in a considerable proportion of critical care patients, which was particularly prevalent in patients without evidence of renal dysfunction.

Challenges in end-of-life care in the ICU. Statement of the 5th International Consensus Conference in Critical Care: Brussels, Belgium, April 2003.

The jurors identified numerous problems with end of life in the ICU including variability in practice, inadequate predictive models for death, elusive knowledge of patient preferences, poor communication between staff and surrogates, insufficient or absent training of health-care providers, the use of imprecise and insensitive terminology, and incomplete documentation in the medical records. The jury strongly recommends that research be conducted to improve end-of-life care. The jury advocates a "shared" approach to end-of-life decision-making involving the caregiver team and patient surrogates. Respect for patient autonomy and the intention to honour decisions to decline unwanted treatments should be conveyed to the family. The process is one of negotiation, and the outcome will be determined by the personalities and beliefs of the participants. Ultimately, it is the attending physician's responsibility, as leader of the health-care team, to decide on the reasonableness of the planned action. In the event of conflict, the ICU team may agree to continue support for a predetermined time. Most conflicts can be resolved. If the conflict persists, however, an ethics consultation may be helpful. Nurses must be involved in the process. The patient must be assured of a pain-free death. The jury of the Consensus Conference subscribes to the moral and legal principles that prohibit administering treatments specifically designed to hasten death. The patient must be given sufficient analgesia to alleviate pain and distress; if such analgesia hastens death, this "double effect" should not detract from the primary aim to ensure comfort.