Liu, Kathleen D.

Scientific evidence regarding AKI and acute kidney care has advanced in recent years. However, a knowledge gap remains on the implementation of these evidence-based practices (EBPs) into clinical care. Implementation science (IS) is focused on ensuring that this knowledge is translated in an effective, efficient and sustainable fashion. Objectives: 1) Define the current status of IS; 2) Define a roadmap for accelerating IS with a focus on patient/care partner advocacy, digital tool application, social determinants of health, and resource-limited settings; and 3) Develop a robust and broad research agenda incorporating IS methodology into the programs. Evidence Review: ADQI XXXV was conducted through a modified Delphi process with virtual meetings preceding an in-person meeting. Five workgroups were determined a priori to focus on 1) IS definitions and methods applicable to AKI and acute kidney care; 2) IS literature in AKI and acute kidney care; 3) Innovations in IS to accelerate the adoption, adherence to, and sustainment of EBPs in AKI and acute kidney care; 4) IS methods in resource-limited settings; and 5) Recommendations to identify and evaluate EBPs that are ready for implementation or de-implementation. Prior to the in-person meeting, each workgroup met virtually to review the literature and develop framework questions to address their objectives. During the two-day in person meeting, through iterative discussions, questions and supporting statements were finalized. These questions and statements were agreed upon through voting to achieve consensus, defined as agreement of ≥80%. Conclusions and Relevance: We report a structured multidisciplinary consensus for defining the role of IS in AKI and acute kidney care. Future programs should address these consensus questions and apply these statements along with IS methodology in the translation of science into clinical practice and the implementation/de-implementation of EBPs in clinical care.

Key Points The Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy in AKI trial found that starting dialysis earlier for AKI resulted in a 74% higher risk of still receiving dialysis at 90 days. Among patients who likely would have started dialysis under usual practice, the risks of dialysis dependence were similar. This suggests much of the risk observed may have been due to starting dialysis (versus never starting) rather than starting slightly earlier. Background The Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy in AKI Trial showed that among critically ill patients with AKI, an accelerated KRT initiation strategy resulted in more KRT dependence at 90 days, as compared with a standard strategy. However, it is unclear whether this difference exists among participants who likely would have been treated with KRT in usual practice. Methods Secondary analysis of the Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy in AKI randomized controlled trial, analyzing participants who received more than the median number of days of KRT, which served as a proxy for high probability of requiring KRT under usual practice. Two sensitivity analyses redefined the cohort as ( 1 ) those with ≥24 hours of oliguria who received KRT and ( 2 ) those who received any KRT. Using the same statistical approach as the original trial, we calculated unadjusted relative risks with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the exposure of randomized KRT initiation strategy (accelerated versus standard) on the outcome of KRT dependence at 90 days among survivors. Results Among the 1184 participants who received ≥6 days of KRT (670 and 514 in the accelerated and standard arms, respectively), baseline characteristics remained balanced between treatment arms. The relative risk of KRT dependence at 90 days was attenuated and nonsignificant: 1.21 (95% CI, 0.84 to 1.78), compared with 1.74 (95% CI, 1.24 to 2.43) in the overall trial. The results were similar in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions Among patients who likely would have been treated with KRT in usual practice, there was no significant difference in 90-day KRT dependence among survivors between those randomized to the accelerated and standard KRT initiation strategies. These results suggest that the harm of long-term KRT dependence may be largely due to KRT initiation (versus never initiation) rather than earlier initiation. Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: NCT02568722.

The American Society of Nephrology has established a new initiative, AKI!Now , with the goal of promoting excellence in the prevention and treatment of AKI by building a foundational program that transforms education and delivery of AKI care, aiming to reduce morbidity and associated mortality and to improve long-term outcomes. In this article, we describe our current efforts to improve early recognition and management involving inclusive interdisciplinary collaboration between providers, patients, and their families; discuss the ongoing need to change some of our current AKI paradigms and diagnostic methods; and provide specific recommendations to improve AKI recognition and care. In the hospital and the community, AKI is a common and increasingly frequent condition that generates risks of adverse events and high costs. Unfortunately, patients with AKI may frequently have received less than optimal quality of care. New classifications have facilitated understanding of AKI incidence and its impact on outcomes, but they are not always well aligned with AKI pathophysiology. Despite ongoing research efforts, treatments to promote or hasten kidney recovery remain ineffective. To avoid progression, the current approach to AKI emphasizes the promotion of early recognition and timely response. However, a lack of awareness of the importance of early recognition and treatment among health care team members and the heterogeneity of approaches within the health care teams assessing the patient remains a major challenge. Early identification is further complicated by differences in settings where AKI occurs (the community or the hospital), and by differences in patient populations and cultures between the intensive care unit and ward environments. To address these obstacles, we discuss the need to improve education at all levels of care and to generate specific guidance on AKI evaluation and management, including the development of a widely applicable education and an AKI management toolkit, engaging hospital administrators to incorporate AKI as a quality initiative, and raising awareness of AKI as a complication of other disease processes.

AKI is a global concern with a high incidence among patients across acute care settings. AKI is associated with significant clinical consequences and increased health care costs. Preventive measures, as well as rapid identification of AKI, have been shown to improve outcomes in small studies. Providing high-quality care for patients with AKI or those at risk of AKI occurs across a continuum that starts at the community level and continues in the emergency department, hospital setting, and after discharge from inpatient care. Improving the quality of care provided to these patients, plausibly mitigating the cost of care and improving short- and long-term outcomes, are goals that have not been universally achieved. Therefore, understanding how the management of AKI may be amenable to quality improvement programs is needed. Recognizing this gap in knowledge, the 22nd Acute Disease Quality Initiative meeting was convened to discuss the evidence, provide recommendations, and highlight future directions for AKI-related quality measures and care processes. Using a modified Delphi process, an international group of experts including physicians, a nurse practitioner, and pharmacists provided a framework for current and future quality improvement projects in the area of AKI. Where possible, best practices in the prevention, identification, and care of the patient with AKI were identified and highlighted. This article provides a summary of the key messages and recommendations of the group, with an aim to equip and encourage health care providers to establish quality care delivery for patients with AKI and to measure key quality indicators.