Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5224_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Contents
- •Outcome Evaluation
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Presentation of Muscular Weakness in the Critical Patients
- •Critical Illness Polyneuropathy (CIP) and Critical Illness Myopathy (CIM)
- •Ventilator-Induced Diaphragmatic Dysfunction (VIDD)
- •Dysphagia, Swallowing, and Effective Cough
- •The Pathophysiology of Acute Skeletal Muscle Wasting
- •Risk Factors
- •Short-Term and Long-Term Outcome
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •The Neuroendocrine Response
- •Pathophysiology of Stress Response
- •The Hypothalamus-Pituitary-Adrenal (HPA) Axis
- •GH Axis
- •Pituitary-Thyroid Axis
- •Pituitary-Adrenal Axis
- •Mitochondrial Dysfunction
- •Metabolic Aspects of Stress Response
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Disorders of Fluid Balance
- •Dysionemias
- •Dysnatremias
- •Dyskalemias
- •Other Electrolyte Derangements (Calcium, Magnesium, Phosphorus)
- •Alterations of Acid Base Balance
- •Acid-Base Disturbances
- •Metabolic Acidosis
- •Respiratory Acidosis
- •Metabolic Alkalosis
- •Respiratory Alkalosis
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Epidemiology and Risk Factors
- •Diagnosis
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Treatment
- •Prognosis
- •Future Perspectives
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Gut Microbiome
- •Gut-Organ Axis
- •Gut-Lung Axis
- •ICU Dysbiosis
- •Gut Changes
- •Microbial Therapy in ICU
- •Antimicrobial Stewardship
- •Nutrition as a Key Factor for Gut Microbiome Homeostasis
- •Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Synbiotics
- •Fecal Microbiota Transplantation
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Validation Process
- •Screening Tools Overview
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Fight-and-Flight Reaction
- •Calorimetry and Total Energy Expenditure
- •Role of Mitochondria in the Various Stages of Intensive Care Recovery
- •REE in Different Clinical Scenarios
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Nutrition in ICU: Evidence from RCTs
- •Inclusion of Too Many Patients Considered at Low Nutritional Risk
- •Unfavorable Energy to Protein Doses
- •Absence of Indirect Calorimetry-Guided Energy Dosing
- •Anabolic Resistance
- •Suppression of Fasting-Induced Recovery Pathways
- •Future Perspectives
- •Development and Validation of Tools to Guide Individualized Nutritional Support
- •Implications for Clinical Practice
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Protein Metabolism in Critical Illness
- •Protein Requirements and Current Evidence
- •Timing of Introduction
- •Early mobilization, Exercise, and Adjuvant Therapies
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Computed Tomography Scan
- •Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis
- •Musculoskeletal Ultrasound
- •Respiratory Muscle Ultrasound
- •Limb Muscles
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Functional Principles
- •Hydration Status Evaluations in Critically Ill Patients
- •Body Composition and Nutrition in ICU
- •Limits of BIVA in Critically Ill Patients
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Introduction
- •Historical Perspective
- •Enteral Versus Parenteral Nutrition Nowadays
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Enteral Nutrition
- •Components of Enteral Mixtures
- •Choice of the Enteral Mixture
- •Special Composition Formulas
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Complications Related to Enteral Feeding Tubes
- •Aspiration
- •Gastrointestinal Intolerance
- •Diarrhea
- •New Horizons
- •New Technologies to Prevent Enteral Nutrition Complications
- •Advanced Tube Feedings
- •smART Platform
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Composition of PN Admixtures
- •Energetic Substrates
- •Carbohydrates
- •Lipid Emulsions
- •Proteins
- •Micronutrients: Electrolytes, Vitamins, and Trace Elements
- •Types of Parenteral Nutrition
- •Compatibility and Stability of the Parenteral Nutrition
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Metabolic Complications
- •Hyperglycemia
- •Hypertriglyceridemia
- •Liver Disease: Steatosis, Cholestatic Disease, and Gallbladder Stones
- •Refeeding Syndrome
- •Mechanical Complications
- •Infectious Complications
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Macronutrients
- •Glutamine
- •Arginine
- •Leucine
- •ω-3 Fatty Acids
- •Micronutrients
- •Antioxidant Vitamins
- •Antioxidant Trace Elements
- •Probiotics, Prebiotics or Symbiotics
- •Use of Probiotics in Clinical Practice?
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Pathophysiological Mechanisms, Risk Factors, and Clinical Implications
- •Pathophysiological Mechanisms of ICUAW
- •Risk Factors Associated with Physical and Functional Recovery in Critically Ill Patients
- •Clinical Impact of Poor Physical and Functional Recovery in Critical Illnesses
- •How to Assess Physical and Functional Recovery in Critical Illnesses
- •Management and Therapies
- •Nutritional Therapy
- •Other Supportive Therapies
- •Patient- and Family-centered ICU Environment
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Bioethics in Clinical Practices
- •Ethical Consideration on Nutrition
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Nutrition in ARDS
- •Caloric Goals
- •Diet Composition
- •Immunonutrition
- •Oral Versus Enteral Versus Parenteral Nutrition
- •Nutrition in COVID-19 Respiratory Failure
- •Nutrition in ECMO Support
- •Enteral Nutrition
- •Parenteral Nutrition
- •Nutritional Goals
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Timing and Route of Nutritional Support
- •Initial Assessment of the Burn Patient
- •Estimation of Energy Expenditure
- •Macronutrients and Micronutrients
- •Proteins
- •Carbohydrates
- •Immunonutrients
- •Arginine
- •Nucleotides
- •ω3 Fatty Acids
- •Glutamine
- •Monitoring of Nutritional Support
- •Nutritional Support for Trauma Patients
- •Route of Feeding: Digestive Tract (Enteral Nutrition) Versus Intravenous (Parenteral Nutrition)
- •Standard or Immune-Enhancing Enteral Nutrition
- •Estimation or Measurement of Energy Requirements
- •Macronutrients
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •General Considerations
- •Assessment of Nutritional Needs
- •Metabolic Changes Induced by Sepsis, AKI, and CRRT
- •Protein Metabolism
- •Lipid Metabolism
- •Vitamins and Trace Elements
- •Phosphates
- •Approaches to Nutrition
- •Enteral
- •Parenteral
- •Timing
- •Recommendations
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Acute Liver Failure
- •Nutrition in ALF
- •Acute Pancreatitis
- •IAP Management
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Nutritional Considerations in Major Surgery
- •Nutritional Requirements During and After Major Surgery
- •Challenges in Meeting Nutritional Needs Post-Surgery
- •Strategies for Enhancing Nutritional Intake and Absorption
- •Intestinal Failure: Nutritional Challenges and Management
- •Impact of Intestinal Failure on Nutritional Status
- •Nutritional Management Strategies for Patients with Intestinal Failure
- •Role of Parenteral Nutrition and Enteral Nutrition in Intestinal Failure Cases
- •Open Abdomen: Nutritional Support and Wound Healing
- •Nutritional Requirements for Patients with Open Abdomen Wounds
- •Challenges in Providing Nutritional Support to Patients with Open Abdomen
- •Clinical Protocols and Guidelines for Nutritional Support
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Nutrition Therapy
- •Determination of Energy Expenditure
- •Route and Timing of Enteral Nutrition
- •Intolerance to Enteral Nutrition
- •Brain Energy Metabolism and Energy Dysfunction Following Acute Brain Injury
- •In Vivo Brain Energy and Glucose Monitoring
- •Alternative Energy Substrates
- •Lactate
- •Ketone Bodies
- •Immunonutrition and Micronutrients
- •Conclusions and Future Directions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •AKI and Cardiac Surgery
- •AKI and Vascular Surgery
- •AKI and Sepsis
- •AKI and Surgery
- •Trauma
- •Burn
- •AKI and COVID-19
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •AKI Etiology
- •Subclinical AKI and AKI Biomarkers
- •Subphenotyping AKI
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •What Are Biomarkers?
- •Novel Biomarkers: How Can They be Implemented?
- •Biomarkers for the Prediction of AKI and Detection of Subclinical Stages
- •Postoperative Biomarker-Guided Prevention of AKI in Patients at High Risk
- •Biomarkers for Other Indications
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •The Machine Learning Arena
- •The Challenges of Timely Prediction of Acute Kidney Injury
- •Early Machine Learning Models for AKI Prediction
- •New Techniques for AKI Prediction Using Deep Learning ML Models
- •Clinical Decision Support Systems
- •The Translational Research Gap and the Value of Data Sharing: A Plea for Data Sharing
- •Limitations of Machine Learning Models
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Doppler Assesses Vascular Congestion
- •Arterial Renal Doppler Ultrasound in AKI
- •Integration of Renal Resistive Index and Intrarenal Venous Flow
- •Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Assessing Renal Perfusion
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Renal Perfusion and Goals of Fluids in AKI
- •Clinical Evaluation of a Patient with AKI in ICU
- •Studies Which Investigated the Association of Fluid Therapy and AKI
- •Volume of Fluid
- •Type of Fluid
- •Crystalloids
- •Colloids
- •Starches
- •Gelatins
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Pathophysiology of Renal Perfusion
- •Acute Kidney Injury
- •Norepinephrine
- •Epinephrine
- •Dopamine
- •Vasopressin
- •Terlipressin
- •Angiotensin II
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Pharmacology of Diuretics
- •Loop Diuretics
- •Other Classes of Diuretics
- •Indications for Diuretics in AKI
- •Control of Fluid Overload
- •AKI Prognostication
- •Situations in Which Diuretics Are Not Indicated
- •AKI Recovery
- •How to Use Diuretics in the ICU
- •Class and Dose Selection
- •Modality of Loop Diuretic Administration
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •What Is Acute Kidney Disease?
- •Clinical Course of AKD Within the ICU
- •Management of AKD in Critical Care and Beyond
- •Conclusions and Future Directions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Renal Functional Reserve
- •Renal Functional Reserve and Renal Recovery After Acute Kidney Injury
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Background
- •Membrane and Filter Characteristics
- •Geometric Characteristics
- •Performance Characteristics
- •Mechanisms of Fluid and Solute Transport
- •Treatment Modalities
- •Treatment Dose
- •Nomenclature of Renal Replacement Therapies
- •Continuous Therapies
- •Intermittent Therapies
- •Hybrid Therapies
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Dialysis Catheters: Technical Aspects
- •Selection of the Site for Dialysis
- •Catheter Insertion Technique
- •Dialysis Catheter Complications
- •Dialysis Catheter Maintenance
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Non-pharmacological Strategies to Reduce Membrane Fouling
- •Pharmacological Strategies to Reduce Membrane Clotting
- •Unfractionated Heparin (UFH) Systemic Anticoagulation
- •Systemic Anticoagulation with Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH)
- •Regional Citrate Anticoagulation (RCA)
- •Systemic Anticoagulation with Direct Thrombin Antagonists
- •Nafamostat
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •CRRT Dose/Outcome Studies: Consideration of Solute Kinetics
- •CRRT Dose as a Quality Criterion
- •CRRT Dose in the Context of Therapy Quality
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Patient Selection and Indications for Starting RRT
- •Strategies to Identify Need for RRT
- •Rationale for an Early Strategy to Starting RRT
- •Rationale for a Conservative Strategy to Starting RRT
- •RRT Replacement Therapy and Clinical Outcomes
- •Current Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations
- •Clinical Trial Evidence on Timing of Starting RRT
- •Implications for Practice
- •Existing Knowledge Gaps and Future Research
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Early ICU Phase before KRT
- •Nutrition Care
- •Monitoring
- •ICU Phase with KRT
- •Gains and Losses During CRRT
- •Electrolyte Loss in CRRT
- •Macronutrient Loss in CRRT
- •Macronutrient Gain in CRRT
- •Micronutrients and Vitamin Loss in CRRT
- •Management of Losses During CRRT
- •Monitoring During CRRT
- •Indirect Calorimetry During CRRT
- •ICU Phase After CRRT
- •EN and PN Product Selection
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Nomenclature
- •Continuous Therapies
- •Intermittent Renal Replacement Therapies (IRRTs)
- •Hybrid Therapies
- •Technical Aspects of RRT Techniques
- •Hemodynamic Stability
- •Solute Clearance
- •Fluid Balance
- •Vascular Access
- •Anticoagulation
- •Drug Dosing
- •Patient Mobilization
- •The Process of RRT Prescription and Administration
- •Indications of RRT
- •Timing
- •Prescription Parameters
- •Dosing
- •Membrane Choice
- •Dialysate and Reinfusion Solutions
- •Limitations of RRT in Critical Care
- •Patient Safety During RRT in Critical Care
- •Introduction
- •Steps in RRT Management and Protocol Application

368 G. Castellani et al.
The BaSICS trial showed that among critically ill patients requiring fluid challenges, the use of a balanced solution (Plasma-Lyte 178) compared with 0.9% saline
solution did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality (primary outcome) nor the
development of AKI and use of RRT [40].
The Plus study compared BMES (Plasma-Lyte 148) or saline as fluid therapy in
the intensive care unit (ICU) for 90 days. The primary outcome was death from any
cause within 90 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes were receipt of new
RRT and the maximum increase in the creatinine level during ICU stay. The authors
found no evidence that the risk of death or acute kidney injury among critically ill
adults in the ICU was lower with the use of BMES than with saline [41].
The criteria used to determine AKI in these trials are different. The PLUS study
evaluated mean, peak, and rise in serum creatinine levels and the initiation of RRT as
prespecified outcomes of kidney function. In contrast, the BaSICS investigators
determined stages of AKI according to the current consensus definition, and the
SMART investigators compared major adverse kidney events at 30 days, a composite outcome, between treatment groups. A systematic review and meta-analysis on
this topic indicate that the estimated effect of using balanced crystalloids rather than
saline for intravenous fluid therapy in a heterogeneous population of critically ill
adults ranges from a 9% relative reduction to a 1% relative increase in death by
90 days [42]. Overall, there is a high probability that the average treatment effect of
using balanced crystalloids is to reduce mortality.
Colloids
Colloids contain oncotic macromolecules that largely remain in the intravascular
compartment. The rationale behind the usage of these solutions is that they maintain
intravascular oncotic pressure and expand the intravascular volume more effectively
and for a longer duration than crystalloids.
Album
in
The SAFE
resuscitation fluid and found no difference in outcomes (organ failures, days in
ICU, days of ventilation, days of RRT) [43]. A post hoc analysis of traumatic brain
injury patients from the same cohort found albumin to be harmful [44]. The ALBIOS
study had as primary outcome mortality at 28 days with no difference between
albumin and crystalloids; the secondary outcomes were death at 90 days (not
different) and the number and degree of organ dysfunction (not different) [
study, in 2004, randomized patients to 4% albumin or saline as a
45].

31 Management of AKI: Fluids 369
Starches
The relation between hydroxyethyl starch (HES) use and outcome was investigated
in two trials:
The 6’s trial compared HES with Ringer’s lactate in critically ill patients and
found an increased risk of death and usage of RRT in the HES group [46].
Another study, in 2012, found no significant difference in 90-day mortality
between patients resuscitated with 6% HES (130/0.4) or saline [47]. However,
more patients who received resuscitation with HES were treated with RRT.
Gelatins
Regarding gelatins, a systematic review with meta-analyses found an increased risk
of AKI and RRT with the usage of gelatins compared with crystalloids
[48]. Table 31.2 displays the main studies which assessed fluid administration
strategies in AKI. In conclusion, there is only a limited role for colloids as a therapy
to prevent AKI. To date, no published clinical trials have specifically compared
different crystalloid fluids in patients with established AKI. Existing data support the
preferential use of buffered solutions for fluid resuscitation of patients at risk of AKI
who do not have hypochloremia. Saline 0.9% is the preferred solution for patients
with hypovolemia and hypochloremia (e.g., following prolonged vomiting). When
used, chloride concentrations should be monitored.
Conclusion
The fluid manag ement of critical patients with AKI should include the following:
Thorough assessment and reassessment of both volume and hemodynamic status.
Hemodynamic
Avoidance o
In cases
choice, while chloride-rich solutions may be considered for hypochloremia.
f flu
of hypovolemia, balanced crystalloid solutions should be the primary
should be systematically explored.
status
id overload is essential.

370 G. Castellani et al.
Table 31.2 Main trials on administration of colloids in ICU patient
ALBIOS
Study SAFE [43]
Setting 16 ICUs in
Australia and
New Zealand
[45 CHEST [47]
]6’s[ ]46
100 ICUs in
Italy
26 ICUs in
Denmark,
Norway,
32 hospitals in
Australia and
New Zealand
Finland, and
Iceland
Design Multicenter,
randomized,
double-blind
Multicenter
open-label
trial
Multicenter,
parallelgroup,
blinded trial
Multicenter, pro-
spective, blinded,
parallel-group,
randomized, con-
trolled trial
Number of patients 6997 1818 804 7000
Population ICU adults ICU adults ICU adults ICU adults
Intervention 4% albumin 20% albu-
min +
6% HES
130/0.42
6% HES 130/0.4
crystalloid
Control Normal saline Crystalloid
alone
Primary outcome
(intervention
vs. control)
Death at
28 days
(726 vs. 729,
0.87)
Death from
any cause at
28 days
p
(285 vs.
288,
p 0.94)
Ringer’s
acetate
Death
(201 vs.
172, p 0.03)
or end stage
kidney fail-
at
ure
Normal saline
Death within
90 days (597 vs.
566, p 0.26)
90 days
(1 vs.
1)
Secondary outcome
(intervention vs. control)
Days in ICU
(6.5 vs. 6.6, p
0.44) days in
hospital
(15.3 vs. 15.6,
p0.30) days of
mechanical
ventilation
(4.5 vs. 4.3, P
Death at
90 days
(365 vs.
389, p 0.29)
RRT in
90 days’
period
(87 vs. 65, p
0.04)
Severe
bleeding
(38 vs. 25, p
0.09)
Acute kidney
injury
(34.6% vs. 38%,
p0.005) and fail-
ure
(10.4% vs. 9.2%,
p 0.12).
RRT (235 vs.
196, p 0.04)
0.74) days of
RRT
(0.5 vs. 0.4,
p0.41)
ICU intensive care unit, AKI acute kidney injury,
RRT renal
replace therapy, 6% HES 6%
hydroxyethyl starch

31 Management of AKI: Fluids 371
References
1. Ronco C, Bellomo R, Kellum JA. Acute kidney injury. Lancet. 2019;394(10212):1949–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32563-2.
2. Susantitaphong P, Cruz DN, Cerda J, et al. World incidence of AKI: a meta-analysis. Clin J Am
Soc Nephrol. 2013;8(9):1482–93. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.00710113.
3. Hoste EAJ, Kellum JA, Selby NM, et al. Global epidemiology and outcomes of acute kidney
injury. Nat
4. Molitoris BA. Low-flow acute kidney injury: the pathophysiology of prerenal azotemia,
abdominal compartment syndrome, and obstructive uropathy. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol.
2022;17(7):1039–49. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.15341121.
5. Kellum JA, Lameire N, KDIGO AKI Guideline Work Group. Diagnosis, evaluation, and
management of acute kidney injury: a KDIGO summary (Part 1). Crit Care. 2013;17(1):204.
https://doi.org/10.1186/cc11454.
6. Berthelsen RE, Perner A, Jensen AK, Jensen JU, Bestle MH. Fluid accumulation during acute
kidney injury in the intensive care unit. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2018;62(6):780–90. https://
doi.org/10.1111/aas.13105.
7. Cecconi M, Hofer C, Teboul JL, et al. Fluid challenges in intensive care: the FENICE study: a
global inception cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(9):1529–37. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00134-015-3850-x.
8. Garzotto F, Ostermann M, Martín-Langerwerf D, et al. The Dose Response Multicentre
Investigation on Fluid Assessment (DoReMIFA) in critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2016;20
(1):196. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1355-9.
9. Wang N, Jiang L, Zhu B, Wen Y, Xi XM, Beijing Acute Kidney Injury Trial (BAKIT)
Workgroup. Fluid balance and mortality in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a
multicenter prospective epidemiological study. Crit Care. 2015;19:371. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s13054-015-1085-4.
10. Finfer S, Myburgh J, Bellomo R. Intravenous fluid therapy in critically ill adults. Nat Rev
Nephrol. 2018;14(9):541–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41581-018-0044-0.
11. De Backer D, Aissaoui N, Cecconi M, et al. How can assessing hemodynamics help to assess
volume status? Intensive Care Med. 2022;48(10):1482–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-
022-06808-9.
12. Forni LG, Joannidis M. Blood pressure deficits in acute kidney injury: not all about the mean
arterial pressure? Crit Care. 2017;21(1):102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-017-1683-4.
13. Kellum JA, Romagnani P, Ashuntantang G, Ronco C, Zarbock A, Anders HJ. Acute kidney
injury. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021;7(1):52. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-021-00284-z.
14. Bagshaw SM, Langenberg C, Bellomo R. Urinary biochemistry and microscopy in septic acute
renal failure: a systematic review. Am J Kidney Dis. 2006;48(5):695–705. https://doi.org/10.
1053/j.ajkd.2006.07.017.
15. Jacobs R, Honore PM, Joannes-Boyau O, et al. Septic acute kidney injury: the culprit is
inflammatory apoptosis rather than ischemic necrosis. Blood Purif. 2011;32(4):262–5. https://
doi.org/10.1159/000330244.
16. Messina A, Bakker J, Chew M, et al. Pathophysiology of fluid administration in critically ill
patients. Intensive Care Med Exp. 2022;10(1):46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40635-022-00473-4.
17. Myburgh JA, Mythen MG. Resuscitation fluids.
doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1208627.
18. Cecconi M, De Backer D, Antonelli M, et al. Consensus on circulatory shock and hemodynamic
monitoring. Task force of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care
Med. 2014;40(12):1795–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-014-3525-z.
Ostermann M, Joannidis M.
19.
Care. 2016;20(1):299. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1478-z.
Rev Nephrol.
2018;14(10):607–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41581-018-0052-0.
N Engl J Med. 2013;369(13):1243–51. https://
Acute kidney injury 2016: diagnosis and diagnostic workup. Crit

372 G. Castellani et al.
20. Legrand M, Le Cam B, Perbet S, et al. Urine sodium concentration to predict fluid responsiveness in oliguric ICU patients: a prospective multicenter observational study. Crit Care. 2016;20
(1):165. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1343-0.
21. Finfer S, Liu B, Taylor C, et al. Resuscitation fluid use in critically ill adults: an international
cross-sectional study in
1186/cc9293.
22. Bouchard J, Soroko SB, Chertow GM, et al. Fluid accumulation, survival and recovery of
kidney function in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Kidney Int. 2009;76(4):422–7.
https://doi.org/10.1038/ki.2009.159.
23. Payen D, de Pont AC, Sakr Y, et al. A positive fluid balance is associated with a worse outcome
in patients with acute renal failure. Crit Care. 2008;12(3):R74. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc6916.
24. Teixeira C, Garzotto F, Piccinni P, et al. Fluid balance and urine volume are independent
predictors of mortality in acute kidney injury. Crit Care. 2013;17(1):R14. https://doi.org/10.
1186/cc12484.
25. Vaara ST, Korhonen AM, Kaukonen KM, et al. Fluid overload is associated with an increased
risk for 90-day mortality in critically ill patients with renal replacement therapy: data from the
prospective FINNAKI study. Crit Care. 2012;16(5):R197. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc11682.
26. RENAL Replacement Therapy Study Investigators, Bellomo R, Cass A, et al. An observational
study fluid balance and patient outcomes in the Randomized Evaluation of
Normal vs. Augmented Level of Replacement Therapy trial. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(6):
1753–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e318246b9c6.
27. Liu KD, Thompson BT, Ancukiewicz M, et al. Acute kidney injury in patients with acute lung
injury: impact of fluid accumulation on classification of acute kidney injury and associated
outcomes. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(12):2665– 71. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.
0b013e318228234b.
28. Ostermann M, Liu K, Kashani K. Fluid management in acute kidney injury. Chest. 2019;156
(3):594–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2019.04.004.
29. Raimundo M, Crichton S, Martin JR, et al. Increased fluid administration after early acute
kidney injury is associated with less renal recovery. Shock. 2015;44(5):431–7. https://doi.org/
10.1097/SHK.0000000000000453.
30. Skytte Larsson J, Bragadottir G, Krumbholz V, Redfors B, Sellgren J, Ricksten SE. Effects of
acute plasma volume expansion on renal perfusion, filtration, and oxygenation after cardiac
surgery: a randomized study on crystalloid vs colloid. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115(5):736–42.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aev346.
31. Gambardella I, Gaudino M, Ronco C, Lau C, Ivascu N, Girardi LN. Congestive kidney failure
in cardiac surgery: the relationship between central venous pressure and acute kidney injury.
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016;23(5):800–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivw229.
32. Legrand M, Dupuis C, Simon C, et al. Association between systemic hemodynamics and septic
acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: a retrospective observational study. Crit Care.
2013;17(6):R278. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc13133.
33. National Heart L and BIARDS (ARDS) CTN, Wiedemann HP, Wheeler AP, et al. Comparison
of two fluid-management strategies in acute lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(24):2564–75.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa062200.
34. Myles PS, Bellomo R, Corcoran T, et al. Restrictive versus liberal fl
abdomin
NEJMoa1801601.
35. Wilcox CS. Regulation of renal blood flow by plasma chloride. J Clin Invest. 1983;71(3):
726–35. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci110820.
36. Chowdhury AH, Cox EF,
crossover study on the effects of 2-L infusions of 0.9% saline and plasma-lyte® 148 on renal
blood flow velocity and renal cortical tissue perfusion in healthy volunteers. Ann Surg.
2012;256(1):18–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318256be72.
al surgery. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(24):2263–74. https://doi.org/10.1056/
391 intensive care units. Crit Care. 2010;14(5):R185. https://doi.org/10.
uid therapy for major
Francis ST, Lobo DN. A randomized, controlled, double-blind

31 Management of AKI: Fluids 373
37. O’Malley CMN, Frumento RJ, Hardy MA, et al. A randomized, double-blind comparison of
lactated Ringer’s solution and 0.9% NaCl during renal transplantation. Anesth Analg. 2005;100
(5):1518–24. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ANE.0000150939.28904.81.
38. Young P, Bailey M, Beasley R, et al. Effect of a buffered crystalloid solution vs saline on acute
kidney injury among patients in the intensive care unit: the split randomized clinical trial.
JAMA. 2015;314(16):1701–10. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.12334.
39. Semler MW, Self WH, Wanderer JP, et al. Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in Critically Ill
Adults. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(9):829-839. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1711584.
40. Zampieri FG, Machado FR, Biondi RS, et al. Effect of intravenous fluid treatment with a
balanced solution vs 0.9% saline solution on mortality in critically ill patients: the basics
randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;326(9):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.11684.
41. Finfer S, Micallef S, Hammond N, et al. Balanced multielectrolyte solution versus saline in
critically ill adults. N Engl J Med. 2022;3 86(9):815–26. https://doi.org/10.1056/
NEJMoa2114464.
42. Hammond DA, Lam SW, Rech MA, et al. Balanced Crystalloids Versus Saline in Critically Ill
Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Ann Pharmacother. 2020; 54:5–13. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1060028019866420.
43. Finfer S, Bellomo R, Boyce N, et al. A comparison of albumin and saline for fluid resuscitation
in the intensive care unit. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(22):2247–56. https://doi.org/10.1056/
NEJMoa040232.
44. SAFE Study Investigators, Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Clinical Trials
Group, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, et al. Saline or albumin for fluid resuscitation in
patients with traumatic brain injury. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(9):874–84. https://doi.org/10.
1056/NEJMoa067514.
45. Caironi P, Tognoni G, Masson S, et al. Albumin replacement in patients with severe sepsis or
septic shock. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(15):1412–21. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1305727.
46. Perner A, Haase N, Guttormsen AB, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer ’s acetate
in severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 201 2;367(2):124– 34. https://doi.org/10.1056/
NEJMoa1204242.
47. Myburgh JA, Finfer S, Bellomo R, et al. Hydroxyethyl starch or saline for fluid resuscitation in
intensive care. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(20):1901–11. https://doi.org/10.1056/
NEJMoa1209759.
48.
Moeller C,
Fleischmann C, Thomas-Rueddel D, et al. How safe is gelatin? A systematic review
and meta-analysis of gelatin-containing plasma expanders vs crystalloids and albumin. J Crit
Care. 2016;35:75–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.04.011.

Chapter 32
Management of AKI: Vasopressors
Paolo Persona and Tommaso Pettenuzzo
Introduction
Acute kidney injury (AKI) represents a critical complication in various clinical
settings, with hypotension emerging as a significant determinant, particularly following surgical procedures. The maintenance of normal renal function hinges on
adequate renal perfusion pressure (RPP), a delicate balance determined by the
interplay between mean arterial pressure (MAP) and central venous pressure
(CVP). When hypotension compromises renal perfusion, interventions such as
fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy become imperative to optimize the
function of kidney microcir culation. The choice of vasopressor agents and inotropic
agents in the management of AKI demands careful consideration, reflecting the
underlying etiology of shock and AKI, whether sepsis, hepatorenal syndrome,
cardiac failure, anaphylaxis, or others. Each vasopressor exerts unique effects on
adrenergic receptors, influencing vascular tone, cardiac output, and renal perfusion.
Additionally, natural hormones like vasopressin and angiotensin II, along with
terlipressin, offer alternative mechanisms of vasopressor support, expandi ng the
therapeutic options for vasodilatory states. Despite the evolving landscape of vasopressor therapy, clinical evidence remains inconclusive regarding the superiority of
one vasoactive agent over others in preventing or treating AKI. This underscores the
complexity of renal perfusion dynamics and the multifaceted pathophysiology
underlying AKI development. Understanding the indications and contraindications
of vasopressor use within the context of AKI is paramount for optimizing patient
outcomes and mitigating the risks associated with renal hypoperfusion. This chapter
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66541-7_32.
P. Persona (
Department of Surgery, Institute of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Padua University
Hospital, Padua, Italy
© The
A. Cotoia et al. (eds.), Nutrition, Metabolism and Kidney Support,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-66541-7_32
✉) · T. Pettenuzzo
Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024
375

376 P. Persona and T. Pettenuzzo
aims to elucidate the pathophysiology of renal perfusion disorders, offering insights
into the mechanisms of action and clinical considerations surrounding vasopressor
therapy in the management of AKI.
Pathophysiology of Renal Perfusion
Renal function relies on maintaining adequate RPP, which is the difference between
MAP and CVP [1]. RPP determines renal blood flow (RBF), representing approximately 20% of cardiac output or about 1.2 L/min [1]. Acute changes in either MAP
and/or CVP can alter RPP. In healthy subjects, RBF is maintained relatively stable
over a wide range of RPP, typically 60–100 mmHg, thanks to the autoregulation
provided by the sympathetic nervous system, the pre-glomerular myogenic reflex,
the tubulo-glomerular feedback, and the neurohormonal activation [ 2 ].
The symp athetic nervous system innervates the entire renal vascular tree through
the action of norepinephrine on adrenergic receptors, primarily distributed on the
renal artery. The myogenic reflex is driven by the increase in RPP, leading to the
stretching of afferent arterioles and consequent vasoconstriction. The tubuloglomerular feedback involves vasoconstriction triggered by the detection of an
increase in chloride ions in the macula densa. When RPP drops below the
autoregulation range, RBF is maintained by alpha-adrenergic receptor activation.
In situations where autoregulation is lost, such as during shock, renal flow becomes
dependent on the relationship between MAP and CVP. The inflow pressure to the
nephrons is renal artery pressure, whi ch depends on MAP. All vasopressors act on
the renal artery. Afferent arteriole tone is regulated by the myogenic reflex and
tubulo-glomerular feedback, while efferent arteriole tone is controlled by vasopressin and angiotensin II. Microcirculation is influenced by all vasopressors. However,
vasopressin and angiotensin II mainly alter the flow in vasa recta through manipulation of salt and water content [
renal function more than MAP [4]. Indeed, lowering CVP can improve renal
function in patients with heart failure [5].
Renal microcirculation is a complex network of shunts between microvessels
(arteries and veins) in the renal cortex, maintaining medullary blood flow at almost
20% of RBF and a partial pressure of oxygen close to 20 mmHg. Consequently, the
renal medulla is more sensitive to hypoxia than the cortex.
3]. The outflow pressure, CVP, seems to influence
Acute Kidney Injury
Hypotension stands as one of the main determinants of acute kidney injury (AKI),
particularly in the postoperative period [6], where the prevalence of AKI varies from
2.9% to 57.4% [7]. The optimal MAP target in critically ill patients to mitigate the
risk of AKI remains a topic of debate. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines

32 Management of AKI: Vasopressors 377
suggest a MAP target of 65 mmHg [8]. However, some authors propose that
intensive care unit (ICU) patients with sepsis may face the risk of AKI even with a
MAP of 85 mmHg [9]. Furthermore, in chronically hypertensive patients, a higher
MAP target may prove beneficial [10]. Adequate intravascular volume resuscitation,
vasopressors, and inotropic agents constitute the cornerstone of optimizing renal
hemodynamics [3]. Crystalloids represent the first-line therapy in hypotensive
patients, with balanced solutions preferred over 0.9% saline due to the risk of AKI
progression and the need for renal replacement therapy [
overload exacerbates renal oxygenation [14] and may compromise renal function
and patient survival [
systemic vascular resistance, such as severe pancreatitis, anaphylaxis, burns, and
liver failure, renal autoregulation is disrupted. Persistent hypotension, despite intravascular volume optimization, places patients at risk for AKI development [17]. In
sepsis, renal damage develops because of endothelial cell injury, impaired
intercellular communication, glycocalyx shedding, coagulation dysfunction, leukocyte and platelet adhesion, and microthrombosis [
despite adequate RPP. When MAP targe ts cannot be achieved solely with fluid
therapy, vasopressors and inotropic agents are employed to enhance kidney microcirculation. The sympathomimetic effects on alpha- and beta-adrenergic receptors of
exogenous dopamine, norepinephrine, and epinephrine result in increased vascular
tone and cardiac output (CO) [17]. Vasopressin and angiotensin II, two naturally
occurring hormones, along with terlipressin, a vasopressin analog, have been
suggested as adjunctive treatments for vasodilatory states, owing to their noncatecholaminergic vasopressor effect [
excessive renal arterial vasoconstriction remains narrow and subject to debate
[20]. Notably, some studies propose that exposure to catecholamines may be detrimental to renal function [
15, 16]. During conditions of high cardiac output and low
18]. These alterations may occur
19]. The threshold between beneficial and
21].
11–13]. However, fluid
Norepinephrine
Norepinephrine exerts a potent effect on alpha-1 adrener gic receptors and a moderate
effect on beta-1 adrenergic receptors, leading to robust vasoconstriction and a
modest increase in cardiac output [17]. The heart rate typically remains unchanged
or may even decrease due to reflex bradycardia resulting from the elevated MAP.
Norepinephrine is the preferred first-line vasopressor for treating septic shock [17].
It has
been theorized that norepinephrine induces renal vasoconstriction and
decreases renal blood flow (RBF), potentially causing hypoperfusion and renal
ischemia. Additionally, norepinephrine infusion-mediated elevation in glomerular
filtration rate (GFR) may enhance sodium delivery into the medullary tubules,
inducing relative medullary hypoxia [
essential hypertension, and hypovolemic hypotension, norepinephrine infusion has
been observed to decrease splanchnic [
retrospective observational study involving 5053 adult patients undergoing cardiac
22]. Under normal circulatory conditions,
23, 24]
and renal blood flow [25–27]. A

378 P. Persona and T. Pettenuzzo
surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass indicated that exposure to norepinephrine was
significantly associated with a 1.95-fold increase in AKI occurrence [28]. Similarly,
a retrospective analysis of 32,250 patients undergoing major abdominal surgeries in
the United States identified increased vasopressor use as correlated with a higher
incidence of AKI [29].
However, sepsis or other
of alpha-adrenergic receptor responsiveness in vascular smooth muscle [30], vasodilatation secondary to nitric oxide release [31], and microvascular obstruction
related to coagulation dysfunction [32]. Under these conditions, restoring vascular
tone and ensuri ng adequate RPP may improve RBF and GFR [33].
Several animal studies support the notion that norepinephrine-mediated adrenergic stimulation during vasodilated hypotension may enhance RBF. In dogs infused
with incremental doses of norepinephrine, renal vascular resistance appeared to
increase from baseline, yet total RBF progressively increased with escalating
doses up to 1.6 mcg/kg/min [34]. Another study in conscious dogs receiving
clinically relevant norepinephrine dosages (0.2–0.4 mcg/kg/min) demonstrated
increased RBF and decreased renal vascular resistance, independent of
prostaglandin-mediated vasodilation, beta-receptor stimulation, or angiotensininduced changes in vascular tone [35]. In endotoxemic dogs, norepinephrine infusion did not induce any decrease in RBF [36]. Similarly, norepinephrine infusion
increased both RBF and RPP in a comparable population of animals [37]. Clinical
studies have corroborated these findings. In ten patients studied after liver transplant
surgery, norepinephrine infusion increased GFR, RBF, and oxygen delivery and
consumption, while not affecting renal vascular resistance, urine flow, or renal
oxygen extraction [38]. In a prospective study involving 56 patients with extremely
low resistance states due to abdominal sepsis, norepinephrine infusion (dosage
ranging between 0.1 and 2 mcg/kg/min) was associated with a significant increase
in creatinine clearance after 48 h [39]. Overall, these investigations support the
notion that clinically relevant doses of norepinephrine infusion do not exert significant renal vasoconstriction. Instead, most of the renal vasodilatory effect of intravenous norepinephrine can be attributed to baroreceptor-mediated decreased renal
sympathetic tone secondary to the increased systemic blood pressure [33].
vasodilated states are characterized by downregulation
Epinephrine
Epinephrine exhibits potent beta-1 adrenergic receptor activity and moderate beta-2
and alpha-1 adrenergic receptor effects [
output, while decreasing systemic vascular resistance, with variable effects on
MAP. This is due to the beta-1 adrenergic receptor-mediated inotropic and
chronotropic effects, while the vasoconstriction induced by alpha-1 adrenergic
receptor activity is often counteracted by beta-2 adrenergic receptor-related vasodi-
17].
lation [
increased systemic vascular resistance. Epinephrine use is also associated with
However, at higher doses, alpha-1 adrenergic stimulation may lead to
17]. At low doses, it increases cardiac
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
