Bates, Samantha

OBJECTIVES: Among patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI) admitted to the ICU in high-income countries, regional practice variations for fluid balance (FB) management, timing, and choice of renal replacement therapy (RRT) modality may be significant. DESIGN: Secondary post hoc analysis of the STandard vs. Accelerated initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02568722). SETTING: One hundred-fifty-three ICUs in 13 countries. PATIENTS: Altogether 2693 critically ill patients with AKI, of whom 994 were North American, 1143 European, and 556 from Australia and New Zealand (ANZ). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Total mean FB to a maximum of 14 days was +7199 mL in North America, +5641 mL in Europe, and +2211 mL in ANZ (p < 0.001). The median time to RRT initiation among patients allocated to the standard strategy was longest in Europe compared with North America and ANZ (p < 0.001; p < 0.001). Continuous RRT was the initial RRT modality in 60.8% of patients in North America and 56.8% of patients in Europe, compared with 96.4% of patients in ANZ (p < 0.001). After adjustment for predefined baseline characteristics, compared with North American and European patients, those in ANZ were more likely to survive to ICU (p < 0.001) and hospital discharge (p < 0.001) and to 90 days (for ANZ vs. Europe: risk difference [RD], –11.3%; 95% CI, –17.7% to –4.8%; p < 0.001 and for ANZ vs. North America: RD, –10.3%; 95% CI, –17.5% to –3.1%; p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Among STARRT-AKI trial centers, significant regional practice variation exists regarding FB, timing of initiation of RRT, and initial use of continuous RRT. After adjustment, such practice variation was associated with lower ICU and hospital stay and 90-day mortality among ANZ patients compared with other regions.

Objectives: Patients and caregivers can experience a range of physical, psychologic, and cognitive problems following critical care discharge. The use of peer support has been proposed as an innovative support mechanism. Design: We sought to identify technical, safety, and procedural aspects of existing operational models of peer support, among the Society of Critical Care Medicine Thrive Peer Support Collaborative. We also sought to categorize key distinctions between these models and elucidate barriers and facilitators to implementation. Subjects and Setting: Seventeen Thrive sites from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia were represented by a range of healthcare professionals. Measurements and Main Results: Via an iterative process of in-person and email/conference calls, members of the Collaborative defined the key areas on which peer support models could be defined and compared, collected detailed self-reports from all sites, reviewed the information, and identified clusters of models. Barriers and challenges to implementation of peer support models were also documented. Within the Thrive Collaborative, six general models of peer support were identified: community based, psychologist-led outpatient, models-based within ICU follow-up clinics, online, groups based within ICU, and peer mentor models. The most common barriers to implementation were recruitment to groups, personnel input and training, sustainability and funding, risk management, and measuring success. Conclusions: A number of different models of peer support are currently being developed to help patients and families recover and grow in the postcritical care setting.