MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cost of acute renal failure requiring dialysis in the intensive care unit: Clinical and resource implications of renal recovery*

2003· article· en· W2032875351 on OpenAlexaffabout
Braden Manns, Christopher J. Doig, Helen Lee, Stafford Dean, Marcello Tonelli, David W. Johnson, Cam Donaldson

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsKidney Foundation of CanadaQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan HealthUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal replacement therapyDialysisHemodialysisIntensive care unitIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineAcute kidney injurySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Acute renal failure can be treated with continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) or intermittent hemodialysis. There is no difference in mortality, although patients treated with CRRT may have a higher rate of renal recovery. Given these considerations, an estimate of the costs by modality may help in choosing the method of dialysis. As such, the objective of this study was to estimate the cost of CRRT and intermittent hemodialysis in the intensive care unit and to explore the impact of renal recovery on subsequent clinical outcomes and costs among survivors. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of all patients who developed acute renal failure and required dialysis between April 1, 1996, and March 31, 1999. SETTING: Two tertiary care intensive care units in Calgary, Canada. PATIENTS: A total of 261 critically ill patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: All patients were followed to determine in-hospital and subsequent clinical outcomes (survival and frequency of renal recovery). The immediate and potential long-term costs of CRRT and intermittent hemodialysis were measured. MAIN RESULTS: The cost of performing CRRT ranged from Can 3,486 dollars to Can 5,117 dollars per week, depending on the modality and the anticoagulant used, and it was significantly more expensive than intermittent hemodialysis (Can 1,342 dollars per week). Survivors with renal recovery spent significantly fewer days in hospital (11.3 vs. 22.5 days, p<.001) and incurred less healthcare costs (11,192 dollars vs. 73,273 dollars, p<.001) over the year after hospital discharge compared with survivors who remained on dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: Immediate cost savings could be achieved by increasing the use of intermittent hemodialysis rather than CRRT for patients with acute renal failure in the intensive care unit. Because of the high cost of ongoing dialysis, CRRT may still be an economically efficient treatment if it improves renal recovery among survivors; further study in this area is required.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.101
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations269
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Care MedicineSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207