↓ Skip to main content

Effect of Early vs Delayed Initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy on Mortality in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Kidney Injury: The ELAIN Randomized Clinical Trial

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Readers on

mendeley
831 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
Title
Effect of Early vs Delayed Initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy on Mortality in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Kidney Injury: The ELAIN Randomized Clinical Trial
Published in
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, May 2016
DOI 10.1001/jama.2016.5828
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Zarbock, John A. Kellum, Christoph Schmidt, Hugo Van Aken, Carola Wempe, Hermann Pavenstädt, Andreea Boanta, Joachim Gerß, Melanie Meersch

Abstract

Optimal timing of initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) for severe acute kidney injury (AKI) but without life-threatening indications is still unknown. To determine whether early initiation of RRT in patients who are critically ill with AKI reduces 90-day all-cause mortality. Single-center randomized clinical trial of 231 critically ill patients with AKI Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) stage 2 (≥2 times baseline or urinary output <0.5 mL/kg/h for ≥12 hours) and plasma neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin level higher than 150 ng/mL enrolled between August 2013 and June 2015 from a university hospital in Germany. Early (within 8 hours of diagnosis of KDIGO stage 2; n = 112) or delayed (within 12 hours of stage 3 AKI or no initiation; n = 119) initiation of RRT. The primary end point was mortality at 90 days after randomization. Secondary end points included 28- and 60-day mortality, clinical evidence of organ dysfunction, recovery of renal function, requirement of RRT after day 90, duration of renal support, and intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay. Among 231 patients (mean age, 67 years; men, 146 [63.2%]), all patients in the early group (n = 112) and 108 of 119 patients (90.8%) in the delayed group received RRT. All patients completed follow-up at 90 days. Median time (Q1, Q3) from meeting full eligibility criteria to RRT initiation was significantly shorter in the early group (6.0 hours [Q1, Q3: 4.0, 7.0]) than in the delayed group (25.5 h [Q1, Q3: 18.8, 40.3]; difference, -21.0 [95% CI, -24.0 to -18.0]; P < .001). Early initiation of RRT significantly reduced 90-day mortality (44 of 112 patients [39.3%]) compared with delayed initiation of RRT (65 of 119 patients [54.7%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.45 to 0.97]; difference, -15.4% [95% CI, -28.1% to -2.6%]; P = .03). More patients in the early group recovered renal function by day 90 (60 of 112 patients [53.6%] in the early group vs 46 of 119 patients [38.7%] in the delayed group; odds ratio [OR], 0.55 [95% CI, 0.32 to 0. 93]; difference, 14.9% [95% CI, 2.2% to 27.6%]; P = .02). Duration of RRT and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the early group than in the delayed group (RRT: 9 days [Q1, Q3: 4, 44] in the early group vs 25 days [Q1, Q3: 7, >90] in the delayed group; P = .04; HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.48 to 1.00]; difference, -18 days [95% CI, -41 to 4]; hospital stay: 51 days [Q1, Q3: 31, 74] in the early group vs 82 days [Q1, Q3: 67, >90] in the delayed group; P < .001; HR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.52]; difference, -37 days [95% CI, -∞ to -19.5]), but there was no significant effect on requirement of RRT after day 90, organ dysfunction, and length of ICU stay. Among critically ill patients with AKI, early RRT compared with delayed initiation of RRT reduced mortality over the first 90 days. Further multicenter trials of this intervention are warranted. German Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: DRKS00004367.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 245 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 831 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 3 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Mexico 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Unknown 819 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 136 16%
Student > Postgraduate 112 13%
Researcher 106 13%
Student > Master 53 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 6%
Other 183 22%
Unknown 190 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 521 63%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 1%
Other 42 5%
Unknown 212 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 265. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 May 2023.
All research outputs
#140,546
of 25,885,956 outputs
Outputs from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#2,142
of 36,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,703
of 350,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#54
of 425 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,885,956 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 36,921 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 72.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 350,331 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 425 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.