Acute renal failure in the 21st century: Recommendations for management and outcomes assessment

Thomas D. DuBose, David G. Warnock, Ravindra L. Mehta, Joseph V. Bonventre, Marc R. Hammerman, Bruce A. Molitoris, Mark S. Paller, Norman J. Siegel, James Scherbenske, Gary E. Striker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

91 Scopus citations

Abstract

Acute renal failure (ARF) remains a common and potentially devastating disorder affecting as many of 5% of all hospitalized patients, with a higher prevalence in patients in critical care units. ARF is more frequently observed in the setting of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome (MODS) and in elderly patients with complex disease, where mortality is high. Numerous technical advances have not yet impacted favorably on this high mortality rate. This report summarizes recommendations from participants at the National Institutes of Health Conference: 'Acute Renal Failure in the 21st Century,' May 6 to 8, 1996, in Bethesda, MD. The focus is on categorizing recent clinically relevant developments in the field and on identification of new research initiatives to transfer a new body of knowledge derived from fundamental studies and laboratory investigation to the management of ARF in the new millennium. The development of a multicenter database through cooperative multicenter studies is advocated. Future studies should define the appropriate outcome measures to assess and emphasize the impact of hemodynamic monitoring, adjunctive agents, and adequacy and modality of renal replacement therapy on outcomes in ARF.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)793-799
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Journal of Kidney Diseases
Volume29
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1997

Keywords

  • Acute renal failure
  • continuous renal replacement therapy
  • critical care unit
  • experimental therapies
  • hemodynamic monitoring
  • intermittent renal replacement therapy

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Acute renal failure in the 21st century: Recommendations for management and outcomes assessment'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this