scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
JournalISSN: 1364-8535

Critical Care 

BioMed Central
About: Critical Care is an academic journal. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Intensive care & Sepsis. It has an ISSN identifier of 1364-8535. It is also open access. Over the lifetime, 14346 publications have been published receiving 361316 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A 2-day consensus conference on acute renal failure (ARF) in critically ill patients was organized by ADQI as discussed by the authors, where the authors sought to review the available evidence, make recommendations and delineate key questions for future studies.
Abstract: There is no consensus definition of acute renal failure (ARF) in critically ill patients. More than 30 different definitions have been used in the literature, creating much confusion and making comparisons difficult. Similarly, strong debate exists on the validity and clinical relevance of animal models of ARF; on choices of fluid management and of end-points for trials of new interventions in this field; and on how information technology can be used to assist this process. Accordingly, we sought to review the available evidence, make recommendations and delineate key questions for future studies. We undertook a systematic review of the literature using Medline and PubMed searches. We determined a list of key questions and convened a 2-day consensus conference to develop summary statements via a series of alternating breakout and plenary sessions. In these sessions, we identified supporting evidence and generated recommendations and/or directions for future research. We found sufficient consensus on 47 questions to allow the development of recommendations. Importantly, we were able to develop a consensus definition for ARF. In some cases it was also possible to issue useful consensus recommendations for future investigations. We present a summary of the findings. (Full versions of the six workgroups' findings are available on the internet at http://www.ADQI.net ) Despite limited data, broad areas of consensus exist for the physiological and clinical principles needed to guide the development of consensus recommendations for defining ARF, selection of animal models, methods of monitoring fluid therapy, choice of physiological and clinical end-points for trials, and the possible role of information technology.

6,072 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKI Network) as discussed by the authors is a multidisciplinary collaborative network focused on AKI, which was established to improve care for patients with or at risk for AKI.
Abstract: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a complex disorder for which currently there is no accepted definition. Having a uniform standard for diagnosing and classifying AKI would enhance our ability to manage these patients. Future clinical and translational research in AKI will require collaborative networks of investigators drawn from various disciplines, dissemination of information via multidisciplinary joint conferences and publications, and improved translation of knowledge from pre-clinical research. We describe an initiative to develop uniform standards for defining and classifying AKI and to establish a forum for multidisciplinary interaction to improve care for patients with or at risk for AKI. Members representing key societies in critical care and nephrology along with additional experts in adult and pediatric AKI participated in a two day conference in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, in September 2005 and were assigned to one of three workgroups. Each group's discussions formed the basis for draft recommendations that were later refined and improved during discussion with the larger group. Dissenting opinions were also noted. The final draft recommendations were circulated to all participants and subsequently agreed upon as the consensus recommendations for this report. Participating societies endorsed the recommendations and agreed to help disseminate the results. The term AKI is proposed to represent the entire spectrum of acute renal failure. Diagnostic criteria for AKI are proposed based on acute alterations in serum creatinine or urine output. A staging system for AKI which reflects quantitative changes in serum creatinine and urine output has been developed. We describe the formation of a multidisciplinary collaborative network focused on AKI. We have proposed uniform standards for diagnosing and classifying AKI which will need to be validated in future studies. The Acute Kidney Injury Network offers a mechanism for proceeding with efforts to improve patient outcomes.

5,669 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Key aspects of the guideline including definition and staging of AKI, as well as evaluation and nondialytic management are summarized, including treatment recommendations based on systematic reviews of relevant trials.
Abstract: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common and serious problem affecting millions and causing death and disability for many. In 2012, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes completed the first ever, international, multidisciplinary, clinical practice guideline for AKI. The guideline is based on evidence review and appraisal, and covers AKI definition, risk assessment, evaluation, prevention, and treatment. In this review we summarize key aspects of the guideline including definition and staging of AKI, as well as evaluation and nondialytic management. Contrast-induced AKI and management of renal replacement therapy will be addressed in a separate review. Treatment recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant trials. Appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed and a detailed rationale for each recommendation is provided.

1,602 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this general intensive care unit population, acute kidney 'risk, injury, failure', as defined by the newly developed RIFLE classification, is associated with increased hospital mortality and resource use.
Abstract: The lack of a standard definition for acute kidney injury has resulted in a large variation in the reported incidence and associated mortality RIFLE, a newly developed international consensus classification for acute kidney injury, defines three grades of severity – risk (class R), injury (class I) and failure (class F) – but has not yet been evaluated in a clinical series We performed a retrospective cohort study, in seven intensive care units in a single tertiary care academic center, on 5,383 patients admitted during a one year period (1 July 2000–30 June 2001) Acute kidney injury occurred in 67% of intensive care unit admissions, with maximum RIFLE class R, class I and class F in 12%, 27% and 28%, respectively Of the 1,510 patients (28%) that reached a level of risk, 840 (56%) progressed Patients with maximum RIFLE class R, class I and class F had hospital mortality rates of 88%, 114% and 263%, respectively, compared with 55% for patients without acute kidney injury Additionally, acute kidney injury (hazard ratio, 17; 95% confidence interval, 128–213; P < 0001) and maximum RIFLE class I (hazard ratio, 14; 95% confidence interval, 102–188; P = 0037) and class F (hazard ratio, 27; 95% confidence interval, 203–355; P < 0001) were associated with hospital mortality after adjusting for multiple covariates In this general intensive care unit population, acute kidney 'risk, injury, failure', as defined by the newly developed RIFLE classification, is associated with increased hospital mortality and resource use Patients with RIFLE class R are indeed at high risk of progression to class I or class F Patients with RIFLE class I or class F incur a significantly increased length of stay and an increased risk of inhospital mortality compared with those who do not progress past class R or those who never develop acute kidney injury, even after adjusting for baseline severity of illness, case mix, race, gender and age

1,417 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The guideline now recommends that patients be transferred directly to an appropriate trauma treatment centre and encourages use of a restricted volume replacement strategy during initial resuscitation, and may also serve as a basis for local implementation.
Abstract: Severe trauma continues to represent a global public health issue and mortality and morbidity in trauma patients remains substantial. A number of initiatives have aimed to provide guidance on the management of trauma patients. This document focuses on the management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma and encourages adaptation of the guiding principles to each local situation and implementation within each institution. The pan-European, multidisciplinary Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma was founded in 2004 and included representatives of six relevant European professional societies. The group used a structured, evidence-based consensus approach to address scientific queries that served as the basis for each recommendation and supporting rationale. Expert opinion and current clinical practice were also considered, particularly in areas in which randomised clinical trials have not or cannot be performed. Existing recommendations were reconsidered and revised based on new scientific evidence and observed shifts in clinical practice; new recommendations were formulated to reflect current clinical concerns and areas in which new research data have been generated. This guideline represents the fourth edition of a document first published in 2007 and updated in 2010 and 2013. The guideline now recommends that patients be transferred directly to an appropriate trauma treatment centre and encourages use of a restricted volume replacement strategy during initial resuscitation. Best-practice use of blood products during further resuscitation continues to evolve and should be guided by a goal-directed strategy. The identification and management of patients pre-treated with anticoagulant agents continues to pose a real challenge, despite accumulating experience and awareness. The present guideline should be viewed as an educational aid to improve and standardise the care of the bleeding trauma patients across Europe and beyond. This document may also serve as a basis for local implementation. Furthermore, local quality and safety management systems need to be established to specifically assess key measures of bleeding control and outcome. A multidisciplinary approach and adherence to evidence-based guidance are key to improving patient outcomes. The implementation of locally adapted treatment algorithms should strive to achieve measureable improvements in patient outcome.

1,247 citations

Network Information
Related Journals (5)
Intensive Care Medicine
12.3K papers, 575.7K citations
96% related
Critical Care Medicine
28.5K papers, 1.1M citations
92% related
Resuscitation
10.9K papers, 293.9K citations
86% related
Shock
6.8K papers, 188.6K citations
86% related
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
18.4K papers, 1.5M citations
82% related
Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Journal in previous years
YearPapers
2021412
2020700
2019424
2018362
2017327
2016373