Abstract
Background Trials sequentially randomizing patients each day have never been conducted for renal replacement therapy (RRT) initiation. We used clinical data from routine care and trials to learn and validate optimal dynamic strategies for RRT initiation in the intensive care unit (ICU).
Methods We included participants from the MIMIC-III database for development, and AKIKI and AKIKI2 (two randomized controlled trials on RRT timing) for validation. Participants were eligible if they were adult ICU patients with severe acute kidney injury, receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, catecholamine infusion, or both. We used doubly-robust estimators to learn when to start RRT after the occurrence of severe acute kidney injury given a patient’s evolving characteristics—for three days in a row. The ‘crude strategy’ aimed to maximize hospital-free days at day 60 (HFD60). The ‘stringent strategy’ recommended initiating RRT only when there was evidence at the 0.05 threshold that a patient would benefit from initiation. For external validation, we evaluated the causal effects of implementing our learned strategies versus following current best practices on HFD60.
Results We included 3 748 patients in the development set (median age 69y [IQR 57– 79], median SOFA score 9 [IQR 6–12], 1 695 [45.2%] female), and 1 068 in the validation set (median age 67y [IQR 58–75], median SOFA score 11 [IQR 9–13], 344 [32.2%] female). Through external validation, we found that compared to current best practices, the crude and stringent strategies improved average HFD60 by 13.7 [95% CI-5.3–35.7], and 14.9 [95% CI - 3.2–39.2] days respectively. Contrasted to current best practices where 38% of patients initiated RRT within three days, with the stringent strategy, we estimated that only 14% of patients would.
Conclusion We developed a practical and interpretable dynamic decision support system for RRT initiation in the ICU. Its implementation could improve the average number of days that ICU patients spend alive and outside the hospital.
Footnotes
Source of Funding and Conflicts of Interest: François Petit was supported by a “Chaire d’excellence” (excellence fellowship) from the IdEx Université Paris Cité, ANR-18-IDEX-0001. Raphaël Porcher acknowledges the support of the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche as part of the “Investissements d’avenir” program, reference ANR-19-P3IA-0001 (PRAIRIE 3IA Institute). The authors have disclosed that they do not have any conflicts of interest.
↵* Note that throughout the paper, we use the term strategy rather than policy. For the remainder of this appendix, these can be taken to be synonymous.
↵† This last equality uses the sequential ignorability assumption i.e., for all t.
↵‡ For the sake of clarity, we denoted when patient i is in a terminal state (i.e., death) at time t.
ABREVIATIONS
- AKI
- Acute Kidney Injury
- BIDMC
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center CI: Confidence Interval
- HFD60
- Hospital-Free Days at day 60 ICU: Intensive Care Unit
- IQR
- Interquartile Range
- KDIGO
- Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes RCT: Randomized Controlled Trial
- RRT
- Renal Replacement Therapy
- SMART
- Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial SOFA: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment