Renal palliative care – where to after the PACKS study?

The PAlliative Care in chronic Kidney diSease study (PACKS study) is examining quality of life, decision making and decisional conflict, costs and mortality in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease who have opted for palliative care. It is also exploring the impact of the decision on the quality of life of carers. The study includes adult patients with end stage (stage 5) chronic kidney disease who have opted for palliative care, adult carers of these patients and renal physicians/clinical nurse specialists who have experience of treating patients with end stage chronic kidney disease who have opted for palliative care.
Early initial findings relate to clinician perspectives on patient decisional conflict, in making complex decisions between dialysis and conservative management. Interviews were conducted with nephrologists and clinical nurse specialists across 10 renal centres in the UK. Themes with associated subthemes include “Frequent changing of mind regarding treatment options,” “A paternalistic approach to decision-making and “Intricacy of the decision”. These findings will be presented and recommendations for future research and education made. Clinicians need to take a more patient centered approach to decision-making. Interventions aimed at increasing understanding of renal disease and its treatments may reduce decisional conflict and raise decisional quality but require testing in the renal specialty.

Conservative fluid management or deresuscitation for patients with sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome following the resuscitation phase of critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

It is unknown whether a conservative approach to fluid administration or deresuscitation (active removal of fluid using diuretics or renal replacement therapy) is beneficial following haemodynamic stabilisation of critically ill patients.

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of conservative or deresuscitative fluid strategies in adults and children with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis or systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in the post-resuscitation phase of critical illness.

Methods

We searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from 1980 to June 2016, and manually reviewed relevant conference proceedings from 2009 to the present. Two reviewers independently assessed search results for inclusion and undertook data extraction and quality appraisal. We included randomised trials comparing fluid regimens with differing fluid balances between groups, and observational studies investigating the relationship between fluid balance and clinical outcomes.

Results

Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Marked clinical heterogeneity was evident. In a meta-analysis of 11 randomised trials (2051 patients) using a random-effects model, we found no significant difference in mortality with conservative or deresuscitative strategies compared with a liberal strategy or usual care [pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.82–1.02, I2 = 0 %]. A conservative or deresuscitative strategy resulted in increased ventilator-free days (mean difference 1.82 days, 95 % CI 0.53–3.10, I2 = 9 %) and reduced length of ICU stay (mean difference −1.88 days, 95 % CI −0.12 to −3.64, I2 = 75 %) compared with a liberal strategy or standard care.

Conclusions

In adults and children with ARDS, sepsis or SIRS, a conservative or deresuscitative fluid strategy results in an increased number of ventilator-free days and a decreased length of ICU stay compared with a liberal strategy or standard care. The effect on mortality remains uncertain. Large randomised trials are needed to determine optimal fluid strategies in critical illness.