Acute Intermittent Peritoneal Dialysis in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients with Renal Failure: Saviour or Succourer

B. Varghese, Arul Rajagopalan, J. Arunachalam, A. Prasath, R. Durai
{"title":"Acute Intermittent Peritoneal Dialysis in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients with Renal Failure: Saviour or Succourer","authors":"B. Varghese, Arul Rajagopalan, J. Arunachalam, A. Prasath, R. Durai","doi":"10.2174/1874303x-v15-e2203290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in critically ill patients with renal failure, with many requiring renal replacement therapies. Unfortunately, many of them are too critically ill to tolerate intermittent hemodialysis. In the setting of limited resources, we did bedside acute intermittent peritoneal dialysis for critically ill COVID-19 patients with hemodynamic instability with or without ventilator support admitted to our intensive care unit.\n \n \n \n The aim of the study was to determine the outcome of intermittent peritoneal dialysis in critically ill COVID-19 patients.\n \n \n \n Our retrospective observational study included 91 patients with critically ill SARS-CoV2 infection and renal failure admitted to the intensive care unit of our hospital from July 2020 to September 2021, who underwent acute intermittent peritoneal dialysis.\n \n \n \n The demographic, laboratory, and treatment parameters were compared between survivors and non-survivors. Variables, like increased mean age (49.88 vs. 59.07 years), presence of diabetes mellitus (36.4% vs. 63.8%), increased lung involvement (57.3% vs. 75.0%), mechanical ventilation (15.2% vs. 70.7%), systolic (84.3 vs. 77.5 mm of Hg) and diastolic (59.09 vs. 42.93 mm of Hg) blood pressures, were associated with poor outcomes. The use of hypertonic PD (63.6% vs. 37.9%), better urea reduction ratios (44.33 vs. 39.84), and increased PD cycles (66.52 vs. 44.26) were associated with a better outcome. Complications, like haemorrhage and peritonitis, occurred in 10.9%.\n \n \n \n PD is a cost-effective bedside RRT that can be considered an effective option in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Good urea clearance, hemodynamic stability, and minimal resource requirements are also the features that favour peritoneal dialysis.\n","PeriodicalId":213268,"journal":{"name":"The Open Urology & Nephrology Journal","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Open Urology & Nephrology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874303x-v15-e2203290","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in critically ill patients with renal failure, with many requiring renal replacement therapies. Unfortunately, many of them are too critically ill to tolerate intermittent hemodialysis. In the setting of limited resources, we did bedside acute intermittent peritoneal dialysis for critically ill COVID-19 patients with hemodynamic instability with or without ventilator support admitted to our intensive care unit. The aim of the study was to determine the outcome of intermittent peritoneal dialysis in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Our retrospective observational study included 91 patients with critically ill SARS-CoV2 infection and renal failure admitted to the intensive care unit of our hospital from July 2020 to September 2021, who underwent acute intermittent peritoneal dialysis. The demographic, laboratory, and treatment parameters were compared between survivors and non-survivors. Variables, like increased mean age (49.88 vs. 59.07 years), presence of diabetes mellitus (36.4% vs. 63.8%), increased lung involvement (57.3% vs. 75.0%), mechanical ventilation (15.2% vs. 70.7%), systolic (84.3 vs. 77.5 mm of Hg) and diastolic (59.09 vs. 42.93 mm of Hg) blood pressures, were associated with poor outcomes. The use of hypertonic PD (63.6% vs. 37.9%), better urea reduction ratios (44.33 vs. 39.84), and increased PD cycles (66.52 vs. 44.26) were associated with a better outcome. Complications, like haemorrhage and peritonitis, occurred in 10.9%. PD is a cost-effective bedside RRT that can be considered an effective option in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Good urea clearance, hemodynamic stability, and minimal resource requirements are also the features that favour peritoneal dialysis.
急性间歇腹膜透析治疗重症COVID-19肾衰患者:救星还是救助者
COVID-19大流行导致肾衰竭危重患者增加,其中许多人需要肾脏替代治疗。不幸的是,他们中的许多人病情严重,无法忍受间歇性血液透析。在资源有限的情况下,我们对重症监护室收治的血液动力学不稳定的COVID-19危重患者进行了床边急性间歇腹膜透析,无论是否有呼吸机支持。该研究的目的是确定重症COVID-19患者间歇腹膜透析的结果。我们的回顾性观察研究纳入了2020年7月至2021年9月在我院重症监护室接受急性间歇腹膜透析的91例重症SARS-CoV2感染并肾功能衰竭患者。比较幸存者和非幸存者的人口学、实验室和治疗参数。变量,如平均年龄增加(49.88比59.07岁),糖尿病的存在(36.4%比63.8%),肺受累增加(57.3%比75.0%),机械通气(15.2%比70.7%),收缩压(84.3比77.5毫米汞柱)和舒张压(59.09比42.93毫米汞柱),与不良预后相关。使用高渗PD (63.6% vs. 37.9%)、更好的尿素还原率(44.33 vs. 39.84)和增加PD周期(66.52 vs. 44.26)与更好的结果相关。并发症如出血和腹膜炎发生率为10.9%。PD是一种具有成本效益的床边RRT,可被认为是COVID-19危重患者的有效选择。良好的尿素清除率、血流动力学稳定性和最小的资源需求也是有利于腹膜透析的特点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信