Management of acute kidney injury

From a review in the Journal of Hospital Medicine:

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in hospitalized patients and is associated with mortality, prolonged hospital length of stay, and increased healthcare costs. This paper reviews several areas of controversy in the identification and management of AKI. Serum creatinine and urine output are used to identify and stage AKI by severity. Although standardized definitions of AKI are used in research settings, these definitions do not account for individual patient factors or clinical context which are necessary components in the assessment of AKI. After treatment of reversible causes of AKI, patients with AKI should receive adequate volume resuscitation with crystalloid solutions. Balanced crystalloid solutions generally prevent severe hyperchloremia and could potentially reduce the risk of AKI, but additional studies are needed to demonstrate a clinical benefit. Intravenous albumin may be beneficial in patients with chronic liver disease either to prevent or attenuate the severity of AKI; otherwise, the use of albumin or other colloids (eg, hydroxyethyl starch) is not recommended. Diuretics should be used to treat volume overload, but they do not facilitate AKI recovery or reduce mortality. Nutrition consultation may be helpful to ensure that patients receive adequate, but not excessive, dietary protein intake, as the latter can lead to azotemia and electrolyte disturbances disproportionate to the patient’s kidney failure. The optimal timing of dialysis initiation in AKI remains controversial, with conflicting results from two randomized controlled trials.

A fib ablation vs antiarrhythmic medication

From a recent study published in JAMA, the CAPTAF trial:

Key Points

Question Is pulmonary vein isolation more effective than optimized antiarrhythmic drug therapy for improving general health in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation?

Findings In this randomized clinical trial that included 155 patients with paroxysmal or persistent symptomatic atrial fibrillation despite use of antiarrhythmic medication, the improvement in quality of life at 12 months for those treated with catheter ablation compared with antiarrhythmic medication was 11.9 vs 3.1 points on the 0- to 100-point 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire, a difference that was statistically and clinically significant.

Meaning In patients with either paroxysmal or persistent symptomatic atrial fibrillation despite medication, catheter ablation may help improve quality of life.

Abstract

Importance Quality of life is not a standard primary outcome in ablation trials, even though symptoms drive the indication.

Objective To assess quality of life with catheter ablation vs antiarrhythmic medication at 12 months in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized clinical trial at 4 university hospitals in Sweden and 1 in Finland of 155 patients aged 30-70 years with more than 6 months of atrial fibrillation and treatment failure with 1 antiarrhythmic drug or β-blocker, with 4-year follow-up. Study dates were July 2008–September 2017. Major exclusions were ejection fraction less than 35%, left atrial diameter greater than 60 mm, ventricular pacing dependency, and previous ablation.

Interventions Pulmonary vein isolation ablation (n = 79) or previously untested antiarrhythmic drugs (n = 76).

Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome was the General Health subscale score (Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey) at baseline and 12 months, assessed unblinded (range, 0 [worst] to 100 [best]). There were 26 secondary outcomes, including atrial fibrillation burden (% of time) from baseline to 12 months, measured by implantable cardiac monitors. The first 3 months were excluded from rhythm analysis.

Results Among 155 randomized patients (mean age, 56.1 years; 22.6% women), 97% completed the trial. Of 79 patients randomized to receive ablation, 75 underwent ablation, including 2 who crossed over to medication and 14 who underwent repeated ablation procedures. Of 76 patients randomized to receive antiarrhythmic medication, 74 received it, including 8 who crossed over to ablation and 43 for whom the first drug used failed. General Health score increased from 61.8 to 73.9 points in the ablation group vs 62.7 to 65.4 points in the medication group (between-group difference, 8.9 points; 95% CI, 3.1-14.7; P = .003). Of 26 secondary end points, 5 were analyzed; 2 were null and 2 were statistically significant, including decrease in atrial fibrillation burden (from 24.9% to 5.5% in the ablation group vs 23.3% to 11.5% in the medication group; difference –6.8% [95% CI, –12.9% to –0.7%]; P = .03). Of the Health Survey subscales, 5 of 7 improved significantly. Most common adverse events were urosepsis (5.1%) in the ablation group and atrial tachycardia (3.9%) in the medication group.

Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation despite use of antiarrhythmic medication, the improvement in quality of life at 12 months was greater for those treated with catheter ablation compared with antiarrhythmic medication. Although the study was limited by absence of blinding, catheter ablation may offer an advantage for quality of life.