Abstract
Background:
Medullary hypoxia is the initial critical event for kidney injury during cardiopulmonary bypass, and therefore urinary PO2 with its potential of detecting medullary oxygenation for its management. Therefore, we tested the role of urinary PO2 in predicting kidney injury in those undergoing conventional versus combined (conventional and modified) ultrafiltration during cardiac surgery in adults.
Methodology:
We prospectively evaluated 32 adults between 18 and 65 years of age undergoing elective on-pump cardiac surgery with ejection fraction >35% by conventional (group C) versus combined ultrafiltration (group CM). Urine samples were analyzed for PO2 after induction, 30 min, 3 h, and 6 h post filtration along with blood urea and serum creatinine after induction, at 6 h, 24 h, and 48 h post filtration. Demographic variables, cardiopulmonary bypass duration, flow rates, inotropic score, ventilation duration, diuretic use, and intensive care unit (ICU) stay were assessed between two groups.
Results:
Both the groups (16 in each group) had comparable urinary PO2 after induction (P = 0.387) with significant decrease in group C at 30 min, 3 h, and 6 h post filtration (P < 0.05). There was a statistically significant increase in serum creatinine (mg/dL) at 48 h in group C compared with group CM (1.57 vs. 1.25, respectively; P ≤ 0.05). There was an increased diuretic usage and length of ICU stay in group C.
Conclusion:
Combined ultrafiltration technique had renoprotective effect in cardiac surgery analyzed by urinary PO2 levels.
Keywords: Cardiopulmonary bypass, ultrafiltration, urinary PO2
Introduction
Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is a nonphysiological procedure associated with immune responses and hemodilution that disrupt the function of organs (on-pump syndrome).[1] Perioperative hemofiltration is one of the treatment modalities to prevent this syndrome.[2] Conventional ultrafiltration (CUF) has limitations in terms of the retraction of the fluids from the patient's body, while modified ultrafiltration (MUF) is performed independent of the volume of the CPB circuit.[3] MUF is an effective tool in reducing inflammatory mediators that cause organ dysfunction and undesirable hemodynamic changes.[4] It is more effective in removing excess fluid and provides more effective hemoconcentration than CUF.
Hypoxia in the renal medulla is the hallmark of acute kidney injury (AKI) following CPB due to inflammatory mediators and urinary PO2 is an index of medullary oxygenation.[5] Even mild AKI after CPB is associated with >4-fold increase in risk of inhospital death.[6] Biomarkers that are available now offer limited prediction of AKI during surgery when interventions still are feasible.[7] Therefore, we compared conventional versus combined (conventional and modified) ultrafiltration techniques to determine its efficacy in renoprotection using urinary PO2 levels.
Methodology
Study design
In this prospective study, urinary PO2 levels were compared in patients undergoing conventional (group C) versus combined ultrafiltration (group CM) during CPB. Elective patients who fulfilled the study criteria were recruited following informed consent. Inclusion criteria were age between 18 and 65 years, elective on-pump cardiac surgery, and EF >35%. Exclusion criteria were preexisting renal disease, serum creatinine >1.5 mg/dL, surgery within 72 h of coronary angiogram, uncontrolled hypertension, use of nephrotoxic agents, and emergency surgery.
Objective
To evaluate the effect of conventional versus combined (conventional and modified) ultrafiltration on urine oxygen tension (PO2) and determine its efficacy in reducing the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
Anesthesia
A standardized protocol was followed for induction and maintenance of anesthesia. Each patient revealed continuous perioperative monitoring of central venous, systemic arterial pressures, SPO2, electrocardiogram, nasopharyngeal temperature, and urine output.
CPB management, filtration techniques
A standard adult extracorporeal tubing set was used incorporating a 40-μm arterial line filter in conjunction with a Trillium Affinity NT Hollow Fiber Oxygenator. The circuit was primed with 1500 mL of Ringer's lactate, 50 mL of 20% mannitol, 50 mL of sodium bicarbonate, and 7000 IU of sodium heparin. An S3 roller pump (Stöckert Instrumente GmbH, Munich, Germany) controlled nonpulsatile flow that was maintained at or above 2.5 L/min/m2. Myocardial protection was provided by intermittent antegrade or retrograde cardioplegia. The cardioplegic mixture consisted of St. Thomas or del Nido solution. Diastolic cardiac arrest was induced with 20 mL/kg of cardioplegic infusion supplemented at 20-min intervals by further doses of 10 mL/kg. The mean perfusion pressure was titrated between 50 and 70 mmHg with a combination of phenylephrine and sevoflurane. Alpha-stat management of acid–base status was used during CPB. Blood PO2 was maintained between 200 and 300 mmHg. Hematocrit was adjusted between 25% and 30%, and patients were randomized to conventional (group C) versus conventional plus MUF (group CM). Hemofiltration was done using Nipro hemofilter (Nipro medical systems, India) in both the groups.
Methods for measurement of urinary PO2 (partial oxygen pressure)
Owing to technical limitation and availability of instruments, we have used blood gas analyzer (Cobas b 221, Roche diagnostic, India) for the measurement of urine PO2. Urine sample was taken with a needle directly from Foley's catheter in a 2-cc new plain syringe. First, urine samples were taken after induction (baseline), 30 min, 3 h, and 6 h post filtration.
Assessment of renal function
Changes in renal function were assessed by measuring blood urea and serum creatinine preoperatively, at 6, 24, and 48 h post filtration. Urine output was also measured at 3, 6, and 12 h post filtration. Demographic variables and perioperative characteristics were also collected. Inotropic score, CPB duration, CPB flow rates, ventilation duration, and ICU stay were also noted.
Statistical analysis
It was carried out using SPSS software, version 16.0 (SPSS, Inc., USA). Chi-square test and independent sample t-test were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Data were presented as mean ± standard deviation or proportion as appropriate. The “P”-value less than 0.05 was considered to be significant.
Results
In all, 32 adults undergoing elective on-pump cardiac surgery with comparable demographic characteristics between the two groups (P > 0.05) with mean age (group CM = 36.19 ± 18.98 vs. group C = 42.93 ± 4.37) are summarized in Table 1. Preoperative serum creatinine, CPB time, CPB flows, and type of cardioplegia (del Nido, St. Thomas) were comparable between the two groups as mentioned in Table 2.
Table 1.
Demographic data
| Group CM (n=16), mean±SD | Group C (n=16), mean±SD | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 36.19±18.98 | 42.93±4.37 | 0.176 |
| Sex, n (%) | 0.157 | ||
| Female | 10 (62.5%) | 6 (37.5%) | |
| Male | 6 (37.5%) | 10 (62.5%) | |
| Weight | 52.81±20.46 | 54.06±4.94 | 0.814 |
| Height | 155.81±19.12 | 156.31±7.55 | 0.923 |
| BSA | 1.50±0.44 | 1.51±0.42 | 0.453 |
SD: Standard deviation; BSA: Body surface area
Table 2.
Preoperative and intraoperative findings
| Group CM, mean±SD | Group C, mean±SD | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preop urea | 33.68±9.68 | 29.62±9.39 | 0.238 |
| Preop creatinine | 0.44±0.12 | 0.46±0.17 | 0.120 |
| CPB time | 185.0±74.21 | 172.37±56.14 | 0.591 |
| CPB flows | 4.15±0.99 | 4.15±0.12 | 0.980 |
| Cardioplegia | |||
| del Nido | 14 (56) | 11 (44) | 0.200 |
| St. Thomas | 2 (28.6) | 5 (71.4) |
SD: Standard deviation; CPB: Cardiopulmonary bypass
Urinary PO2 was comparable between the two groups post induction (P = 0.387) with statistically significant difference at 30 min, 3 h, and 6 h post filtration with P < 0.05 as shown in Table 3. At 3 h, 6 h, and 12 h post filtration, there was no statistically significant change in urine output between those groups with P = 0.57, P = 0.291, and P = 0.293 respectively as shown in Table 4. Changes between two groups with reference to urinary PO2 were represented in Figure 1. There was a statistically significant increase in serum creatinine at 48 h (group CM vs. group C = 1.25 ± 0.14 vs. 1.57 ± 0.16, P < 0.001) as shown in Table 5. In Figure 2, the comparison of serum creatinine between two groups were shown at various time points. Intraoperatively, there was a significant change in urine output with P = 0.005 between the two groups.
Table 3.
Urine PO2 at different time points
| Group CM, mean±SD | Group C, mean±SD | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| After induction | 160.56±15.315 | 164.37±8.51 | 0.387 |
| 30 min post filtration | 162.00±13.08 | 151.68±10.26 | 0.019 |
| 3 h post filtration | 163.43±10.65 | 142.56±10.31 | <0.001 |
| 6 h post filtration | 158.81±11.10 | 141.12±10.29 | <0.001 |
SD: Standard deviation
Table 4.
Urine output at different time points
| Group CM, mean±SD | Group C, mean±SD | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intraop | 2015.62±855.91 | 1319.06±301.07 | 0.005 |
| At 3 h | 138.75±56.58 | 130.00±22.80 | 0.570 |
| At 6 h | 288.75±108.00 | 255.94±56.81 | 0.291 |
| At 12 h | 579.37±207.66 | 519.68±80.98 | 0.293 |
SD: Standard deviation
Figure 1.
Urinary PO2 at various time points
Table 5.
Serum creatinine at different time points
| Serum creatinine | Group CM, mean±SD | Group C, mean±SD | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| At 6 h | 0.82±0.19 | 1.00±0.29 | 0.042 |
| At 24 h | 1.18±0.27 | 1.26±0.24 | 0.405 |
| At 48 h | 1.25±0.14 | 1.57±0.16 | <0.001 |
SD: Standard deviation
Figure 2.
Serum creatinine at various time points
Postoperatively, there was a significant increase in use of diuretics (P < 0.001) and ICU stay in group C (P = 0.001) as shown in Table 6.
Table 6.
Other variables
| Group CM, mean±SD | Group C, mean±SD | P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inotropic score | 9.64±4.73 | 12.87±4.70 | 0.062 |
| Ventilation time | 181.56±69.17 | 190.62±49.89 | 0.674 |
| Diuretics | 4 (22.2%) | 14 (77.8%) | <0.001 |
| ICU stay | 3.25±1.43 | 5.00±1.21 | 0.001 |
SD: Standard deviation; ICU: Intensive care unit
Discussion
Advances in CPB and perfusion techniques have been accomplished over the last 50 years in open heart surgery.[1] CPB increases the blood levels of immune mediators leading to a systemic inflammatory response syndrome.[7] This syndrome is associated with reduced systemic vascular resistance, demanding vasoconstriction, fluid replacement therapy, and elevated cardiac output.[8,9] Increased capillary permeability, weight gain, and inflammatory mediators will complicate postsurgical recovery and organ function.[10]
Ultrafiltration can mitigate adverse effects of CPB by removing inflammatory mediators and free water. There are two different techniques of ultrafiltration: CUF and MUF.[11,12] CUF is performed during CPB, with limitations in terms of retraction of the fluids from the patient during surgery. Therefore, there is a need for MUF that is performed at the end of CPB being independent of volume of the CPB circuit.[13] Due to technical differences in time of these two techniques, more liquid can usually be retracted through MUF than CUF.[14] The technique of MUF was developed at the Great Ormond Street in London, in 1991, by Naik et al.[14,15] MUF is more effective in removing excess fluid from patients than CUF and can reduce systemic inflammatory response syndrome and improve clinical outcomes.[16,17]
The renal medulla is one the first affected tissues from decreased perfusion during CPB, and therefore AKI is common after cardiac surgery.[18] In severe AKI, 1%–2% of patients require renal replacement therapy after surgery with mortality exceeding 35%.[19] There are no validated methods to assess the risk of AKI intraoperatively. Urinary hypoxia capture combined effects of pre- and intraoperative factors that lead to medullary hypoxia during on-pump surgery. Partial pressure of the urine taken from the renal pelvis is related to the perfusion of renal medulla.[20] The delay between medullary hypoxia and measurement of urinary hypoxia should be only minutes, and this biomarker has potential in management of high-risk patients and prevents AKI.[21] Therefore, urinary PO2 provides an index of medullary oxygenation.
Many authors studied the role of urinary PO2 as a biomarker for AKI during cardiac surgery and identified fluctuations in oxygen tension in the urine correlating with incidence of AKI.[21,22] Zhu et al. evaluated the role of urinary PO2 as an intraoperative marker of AKI during cardiac surgery and found that patients with low urinary PO2 for longer period had higher risk of developing AKI.[22] Similarly, Cochrane et al. found urinary PO2 to be a guide in management of perfusion and reduce kidney injury by optimization of pump flows and arterial pressure. In our study, we evaluated the role of urinary PO2 analysis in assessing the kidney injury during conventional and combined ultrafiltration in cardiac surgery.
In this study, the authors studied the role of urinary PO2 trend in patients undergoing conventional and combined (conventional plus modified) ultrafiltration during bypass. Although urinary PO2 levels were comparable after induction between the two groups, they were significantly low in group C at 30 min, 3 h, and 6 h post filtration correlating with higher serum creatinine in group C. In our study, urinary PO2 levels were progressively decreased correlating with the progressive increase in serum creatinine in group C. At 30 min post filtration, there was a significant decrease in urine PO2 in group C (P = 0.019). Even at 3 h, despite comparable urine output between two groups, there was a fall in PO2 in group C (P < 0.001). Similarly, at 6 h post filtration, there was a fall in urine PO2 (group C vs. CM = 158.81 ± 11.10 vs. 141.12 ± 10.29; P < 0.001). At 48 h, there was a significant raise in creatinine in group C who had fall in urinary PO2 as early as 30 min post filtration demonstrating parallel change. The rate of decline in PO2 in group C is more than group CM which alarms the clinician very early regarding the kidney injury, which is being depicted at 48 h with rise in creatinine. Owing to higher serum creatinine in group C, patients had higher diuretic usage (P < 0.001) and greater length of ICU stay (P = 0.001).
Limitations
There is a technical limitation of the availability of instrument required for the accurate measurement of urinary PO2; in view of this, we measured urine PO2 from the urine sample directly collected from the Foley's catheter tubing. The study is also limited by its sample size for drawing better conclusions regarding the role of urinary PO2 analysis.
Conclusion
Although this study had limitations, we can safely conclude that combined (conventional plus modified) ultrafiltration has better renoprotection with low incidence of kidney injury by urinary PO2 analysis.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgement
This original article was presented in the Janak Mehta Award session year 2019 of IACTA Annual meeting.
References
- 1.Torina AG, Petrucci O, Oliveira PP, Severino ES, Vilarinho KA, Lavagnoli CF, et al. The effects of modified ultrafiltration on pulmonary function and transfusion requirements in patients underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc. 2010;25:59–65. doi: 10.1590/s0102-76382010000100014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Westaby S. Organ dysfunction after cardiopulmonary bypass: A systemic inflammatory reaction induced by the extracorporeal circuit. Intensive Care Med. 1987;13:89–95. doi: 10.1007/BF00254791. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Naik SK, Knight A, Elliott M. A prospective randomized study of a modified technique of ultrafiltration during pediatric open-heart surgery. Circulation. 1991;84(Suppl 3):422–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Darling E, Harris-Holloway S, Kern FH, Ungerleider R, Jaggers J, Lawson S, et al. Impact of modifying components and fluid administration using miniaturized circuitry in neonatal cardiopulmonary bypass. Perfusion. 2000;15:3–12. doi: 10.1177/026765910001500102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Cremer J, Martin M, Redl H, Bahrami S, Abraham C, Graeter T, et al. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome after cardiac operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;61:1714–20. doi: 10.1016/0003-4975(96)00055-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Lawrence H, Cohn MD. Fifty years of openheart surgery. Circulation. 2003;107:2168–70. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000071746.50876.E2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Butler J, Rocker GM, Westaby S. Inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg. 1993;55:552–9. doi: 10.1016/0003-4975(93)91048-r. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Magilligan DJ. Indications of ultrafiltration in the cardiac surgical patient. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1985;89:183–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Elliott MJ. Ultrafiltration and modified ultrafiltration in pediatric open heart operations. Ann Thorac Surg. 1993;56:1518–22. doi: 10.1016/0003-4975(93)90744-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Kiziltepe U, Uysalel A, Corapcioglu T, Dalva K, Akan H, Akalin H. Effects of combined conventional and modified ultrafiltration in adult patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71:684–93. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(00)02518-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Mikhailova IL, Samsonova NN, Shelepova VM. The use of modified ultrafiltration in correcting complex congenital heart defects in newborn and nursing infants. Anesteziol Reanimatol. 1998;1:41–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Daggett CW, Lodge AJ, Scarborough, JE, Chai PJ, Jaggers J, Ungerleider RM. Modified ultrafiltration versus conventional ultrafiltration: A randomized prospective study in neonatal piglets. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998;115:336–42. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5223(98)70277-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Journois D, Israel-Biet D, Pouard P, Rolland B, Silvester W, Vouhe P, et al. High-volume, zerobalanced hemofiltration to reduce delayed inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass in children. Anesthesiology. 1996;85:965–76. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199611000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Gaynor JW. The effect of modified ultrafiltration on the postoperative course in patients with congenital heart disease. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Pediatr Card Surg Annu. 2003;6:128–39. doi: 10.1053/pcsu.2003.50006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ramamoorthy C, Lynn A. Con: The use of modified ultrafiltration during pediatric cardiovascular surgery in not a benefit. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 1998;12:483–5. doi: 10.1016/s1053-0770(98)90208-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Munir B, Kathryn W, Andrew B, Gurinder G, Nusrat S, Fraser DR. Ultrafiltration reduces blood transfusions following cardiac surgery: A meta-analysis. Eur J Cardio Surg. 2006;30:892–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2006.09.014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Abbas S, Bakhsh M, Shahab ANSM, Saddique N. Modified ultrafiltration in adult cardiac surgery is it really beneficial? A prospective randomized clinical trial. Professional Med J. 2007;14:653–8. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Karkouti K, Wijeysundera DN, Yau TM, Callum JL, Cheng DC, Crowther M, et al. Acute kidney injury after cardiac surgery: Focus on modifiable risk factors. Circulation. 2009;119:495–502. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.786913. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Evans RG, Ince C, Joles JA, Smith DW, May CN, O’Connor PM, et al. Haemodynamic influences on kidney oxygenation: Clinical implications of integrative physiology. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 2013;40:106–22. doi: 10.1111/1440-1681.12031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Patel R, Joshi H, Patel H, Kothari J, Pandya H, Solanki A. Use of urinary PO2 for early detection of renal dysfunction in cardiac surgical patients. Int J Med Sci Public Health. 2016;5:847–51. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Tosun M, Ulugol H, Kırat B, Kilercik M, Erek E, Aksu U, et al. Urine partial oxygen pressure as early marker of acute kidney injury after paediatric cardiac surgery. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018;33:2191–201. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Zhu MZ, Martin A, Cochrane AD, Smith JA, Thrift AG, Harrop GK, et al. Urinary hypoxia: An intraoperative marker of risk of cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018;33:2191–201. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfy047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]