TY - JOUR
T1 - Feasibility Assessment of a Biomarker-Guided Kidney-Sparing Sepsis Bundle
T2 - The Limiting Acute Kidney Injury Progression In Sepsis Trial
AU - Gómez, Hernando
AU - Zarbock, Alexander
AU - Pastores, Stephen M.
AU - Frendl, Gyorgy
AU - Bercker, Sven
AU - Asfar, Pierre
AU - Conrad, Steven A.
AU - Creteur, Jaques
AU - Miner, James
AU - Mira, Jean Paul
AU - Motsch, Johan
AU - Quenot, Jean Pierre
AU - Rimmelé, Thomas
AU - Rosenberger, Peter
AU - Vinsonneau, Christophe
AU - Birch, Bob
AU - Heskia, Fabienne
AU - Textoris, Julien
AU - Molinari, Luca
AU - Guzzi, Louis M.
AU - Ronco, Claudio
AU - Kellum, John A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Author(s).
PY - 2023/8/21
Y1 - 2023/8/21
N2 - OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a biomarker-guided implementation of a kidney-sparing sepsis bundle (KSSB) of care in comparison with standard of care (SOC) on clinical outcomes in patients with sepsis. DESIGN: Adaptive, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Five University Hospitals in Europe and North America. PATIENTS: Adult patients, admitted to the ICU with an indwelling urinary catheter and diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock, without acute kidney injury (acute kidney injury) stage 2 or 3 or chronic kidney disease. INTERVENTIONS: A three-level KSSB based on Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGOs) recommendations guided by serial measurements of urinary tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2 and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7 used as a combined biomarker [TIMP2]•[IGFBP7]. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The trial was stopped for low enrollment related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nineteen patients enrolled in five sites over 12 months were randomized to the SOC (n = 8, 42.0%) or intervention (n = 11, 58.0%). The primary outcome was feasibility, and key secondary outcomes were safety and efficacy. Adherence to protocol in patients assigned to the first two levels of KSSB was 15 of 19 (81.8%) and 19 of 19 (100%) but was 1 of 4 (25%) for level 3 KSSB. Serious adverse events were more frequent in the intervention arm (4/11, 36.4%) than in the control arm (1/8, 12.5%), but none were related to study interventions. The secondary efficacy outcome was a composite of death, dialysis, or progression of greater than or equal to 2 stages of acute kidney injury within 72 hours after enrollment and was reached by 3 of 8 (37.5%) patients in the control arm, and 0 of 11 (0%) patients in the intervention arm. In the control arm, two patients experienced progression of acute kidney injury, and one patient died. CONCLUSIONS: Although the COVID-19 pandemic impeded recruitment, the actual implementation of a therapeutic strategy that deploys a KDIGO-based KSSB of care guided by risk stratification using urinary [TIMP2]•[IGFBP7] seems feasible and appears to be safe in patients with sepsis.
AB - OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a biomarker-guided implementation of a kidney-sparing sepsis bundle (KSSB) of care in comparison with standard of care (SOC) on clinical outcomes in patients with sepsis. DESIGN: Adaptive, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Five University Hospitals in Europe and North America. PATIENTS: Adult patients, admitted to the ICU with an indwelling urinary catheter and diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock, without acute kidney injury (acute kidney injury) stage 2 or 3 or chronic kidney disease. INTERVENTIONS: A three-level KSSB based on Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGOs) recommendations guided by serial measurements of urinary tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases-2 and insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 7 used as a combined biomarker [TIMP2]•[IGFBP7]. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The trial was stopped for low enrollment related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Nineteen patients enrolled in five sites over 12 months were randomized to the SOC (n = 8, 42.0%) or intervention (n = 11, 58.0%). The primary outcome was feasibility, and key secondary outcomes were safety and efficacy. Adherence to protocol in patients assigned to the first two levels of KSSB was 15 of 19 (81.8%) and 19 of 19 (100%) but was 1 of 4 (25%) for level 3 KSSB. Serious adverse events were more frequent in the intervention arm (4/11, 36.4%) than in the control arm (1/8, 12.5%), but none were related to study interventions. The secondary efficacy outcome was a composite of death, dialysis, or progression of greater than or equal to 2 stages of acute kidney injury within 72 hours after enrollment and was reached by 3 of 8 (37.5%) patients in the control arm, and 0 of 11 (0%) patients in the intervention arm. In the control arm, two patients experienced progression of acute kidney injury, and one patient died. CONCLUSIONS: Although the COVID-19 pandemic impeded recruitment, the actual implementation of a therapeutic strategy that deploys a KDIGO-based KSSB of care guided by risk stratification using urinary [TIMP2]•[IGFBP7] seems feasible and appears to be safe in patients with sepsis.
KW - acute kidney injury
KW - biomarker
KW - cell cycle arrest
KW - sepsis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85170292612&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85170292612&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000961
DO - 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000961
M3 - Article
C2 - 37614799
AN - SCOPUS:85170292612
SN - 2639-8028
VL - 5
SP - e0961
JO - Critical Care Explorations
JF - Critical Care Explorations
IS - 8
ER -
