PMCC PMCC

Search tips
Search criteria

Advanced
Results 1-4 (4)
 

Clipboard (0)
None

Select a Filter Below

Journals
Year of Publication
Document Types
author:("zen, fabric")
1.  Diagnostic accuracy of early urinary index changes in differentiating transient from persistent acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: multicenter cohort study 
Critical Care  2013;17(2):R56.
Introduction
Urinary indices have limited effectiveness in separating transient acute kidney injury (AKI) from persistent AKI in ICU patients. Their time-course may vary with the mechanism of AKI. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of changes over time of the usual urinary indices in separating transient AKI from persistent AKI.
Methods
An observational prospective multicenter study was performed in six ICUs involving 244 consecutive patients, including 97 without AKI, 54 with transient AKI, and 93 with persistent AKI. Urinary sodium, urea and creatinine were measured at ICU admission (H0) and on 6-hour urine samples during the first 24 ICU hours (H6, H12, H18, and H24). Transient AKI was defined as AKI with a cause for renal hypoperfusion and reversal within 3 days.
Results
Significant increases from H0 to H24 were noted in fractional excretion of urea (median, 31% (22 to 41%) and 39% (29 to 48%) at H24, P < 0.0001), urinary urea/plasma urea ratio (15 (7 to 28) and 20 (9 to 40), P < 0.0001), and urinary creatinine/plasma creatinine ratio (50 (24 to 101) and 57 (29 to 104), P = 0.01). Fractional excretion of sodium did not change significantly during the first 24 hours in the ICU (P = 0.13). Neither urinary index values at ICU admission nor changes in urinary indices between H0 and H24 performed sufficiently well to recommend their use in clinical setting (area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve ≤0.65).
Conclusion
Although urinary indices at H24 performed slightly better than those at H0 in differentiating transient AKI from persistent AKI, they remain insufficiently reliable to be clinically relevant.
doi:10.1186/cc12582
PMCID: PMC3733426  PMID: 23531299
2.  Meningitis in adult patients with a negative direct cerebrospinal fluid examination: value of cytochemical markers for differential diagnosis 
Critical Care  2011;15(3):R136.
Introduction
The objective of this study was to determine the ability of various parameters commonly used for the diagnosis of acute meningitis to differentiate between bacterial and viral meningitis, in adult patients with a negative direct cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) examination.
Methods
This was a prospective study, started in 1997, including all patients admitted to the emergency unit with acute meningitis and a negative direct CSF examination. Serum and CSF samples were taken immediately on admission. The patients were divided into two groups according to the type of meningitis: bacterial (BM; group I) or viral (VM; group II). The CSF parameters investigated were cytology, protein, glucose, and lactate; the serum parameters evaluated were C-reactive protein and procalcitonin. CSF/serum glucose and lactate ratios were also assessed.
Results
Of the 254 patients with meningitis with a negative direct CSF examination, 35 had BM and 181, VM. The most highly discriminative parameters for the differential diagnosis of BM proved to be CSF lactate, with a sensitivity of 94%, a specificity of 92%, a negative predictive value of 99%, a positive predictive value of 82% at a diagnostic cut-off level of 3.8 mmol/L (area under the curve (AUC), 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95 to 1), and serum procalcitonin, with a sensitivity of 95%, a specificity of 100%, a negative predictive value of 100%, and a positive predictive value of 97% at a diagnostic cut-off level of 0.28 ng/ml (AUC, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1).
Conclusions
Serum procalcitonin and CSF lactate concentrations appear to be the most highly discriminative parameters for the differential diagnosis of BM and VM.
doi:10.1186/cc10254
PMCID: PMC3219005  PMID: 21645387
3.  Diagnostic performance of fractional excretion of urea in the evaluation of critically ill patients with acute kidney injury: a multicenter cohort study 
Critical Care  2011;15(4):R178.
Introduction
Several factors, including diuretic use and sepsis, interfere with the fractional excretion of sodium, which is used to distinguish transient from persistent acute kidney injury (AKI). These factors do not affect the fractional excretion of urea (FeUrea). However, there are conflicting data on the diagnostic accuracy of FeUrea.
Methods
We conducted an observational, prospective, multicenter study at three ICUs in university hospitals. Unselected patients, except those with obstructive AKI, were admitted to the participating ICUs during a six-month period. Transient AKI was defined as AKI caused by renal hypoperfusion and reversal within three days. The results are reported as medians (interquartile ranges).
Results
A total of 203 patients were included. According to our definitions, 67 had no AKI, 54 had transient AKI and 82 had persistent AKI. FeUrea was 39% (28 to 40) in the no-AKI group, 41% (29 to 54) in the transient AKI group and 32% (22 to 51) in the persistent AKI group (P = 0.12). FeUrea was of little help in distinguishing transient AKI from persistent AKI, with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve being 0.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.49 to 0.70; P = 0.06). Sensitivity was 63% and specificity was 54% with a cutoff of 35%. In the subgroup of patients receiving diuretics, the results were similar.
Conclusions
FeUrea may be of little help in distinguishing transient AKI from persistent AKI in critically ill patients, including those receiving diuretic therapy. Additional studies are needed to evaluate alternative markers or strategies to differentiate transient from persistent AKI.
doi:10.1186/cc10327
PMCID: PMC3387621  PMID: 21794161
acute kidney failure; ICU; fractional excretion of sodium; acute tubular necrosis; diuretics; sensitivity and specificity
4.  Continuous infusion of ceftazidime in critically ill patients undergoing continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration: pharmacokinetic evaluation and dose recommendation 
Critical Care  2006;10(1):R26.
Introduction
In seriously infected patients with acute renal failure and who require continuous renal replacement therapy, data on continuous infusion of ceftazidime are lacking. Here we analyzed the pharmacokinetics of ceftazidime administered by continuous infusion in critically ill patients during continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) in order to identify the optimal dosage in this setting.
Method
Seven critically ill patients were prospectively enrolled in the study. CVVHDF was performed using a 0.6 m2 AN69 high-flux membrane and with blood, dialysate and ultrafiltration flow rates of 150 ml/min, 1 l/hour and 1.5 l/hour, respectively. Based on a predicted haemodiafiltration clearance of 32.5 ml/min, all patients received a 2 g loading dose of ceftazidime, followed by a 3 g/day continuous infusion for 72 hours. Serum samples were collected at 0, 3, 15 and 30 minutes and at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 72 hours; dialysate/ultrafiltrate samples were taken at 2, 8, 12, 24, 36 and 48 hours. Ceftazidime concentrations in serum and dialysate/ultrafiltrate were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography.
Results
The mean (± standard deviation) elimination half-life, volume of distribution, area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to 72 hours, and total clearance of ceftazidime were 4 ± 1 hours, 19 ± 6 l, 2514 ± 212 mg/h per l, and 62 ± 5 ml/min, respectively. The mean serum ceftazidime steady-state concentration was 33.5 mg/l (range 28.8–36.3 mg/l). CVVHDF effectively removed continuously infused ceftazidime, with a sieving coefficient and haemodiafiltration clearance of 0.81 ± 0.11 and 33.6 ± 4 mg/l, respectively.
Conclusion
We conclude that a dosing regimen of 3 g/day ceftazidime, by continuous infusion, following a 2 g loading dose, results in serum concentrations more than four times the minimum inhibitory concentration for all susceptible pathogens, and we recommend this regimen in critically ill patients undergoing CVVHDF.
doi:10.1186/cc3993
PMCID: PMC1550796  PMID: 16507147

Results 1-4 (4)