OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy, safety and cost of treating patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) and diabetic nephropathy (DN) with continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) or sustained low-efficiency daily diafiltration with hemofiltration (SLEDD-f).
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Medical records of patients with AKI/DN from January 2006 to December 2012 were reviewed. Fifty-five patients who received CRRT and 52 who received SLEDD-f were included in the study. CRRT and SLEDD-f were performed for 20-72 h per session and 8-10 h per session, respectively. Mortality and renal function recovery rates were evaluated 30 days after the initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) and APACHE-II and SOFA scores, anticoagulant dose, inflammatory indices and cost were calculated at baseline and at the end of RRT.
RESULTS: Of the 55 patients treated with CRRT, 49 (89.1%) had a 30-day survival rate and 30 (54.5%) had a 30-day renal recovery rate. Of the 52 patients with SLEDD-f, these rates were 92.3% (n = 48) and 61.5% (n = 32), respectively. The dosage of low-molecular-weight heparin in the CRRT and SLEDD-f groups was 15,230 ± 1,460 and 6,320 ± 490 U/day, respectively. The cost of hemopurification and the total cost for patients treated with CRRT was CNY 28,628 ± 5,576 (USD 4,210 ± 820) and CNY 38,828 ± 6,324 (USD 5,710 ± 930), respectively. These were higher than those for patients treated with SLEDD-f at CNY 13,260 ± 1,564 (USD 1,950 ± 230) and CNY 19,720 ± 2,652 (USD 2,900 ± 390), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: SLEDD-f offered a similar chance of renal recovery and also had further advantages such as a lower heparin dosage, a shorter therapy time and lower hospitalization costs for patients than CRRT. Studies with larger, randomized sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings.
Prolonged intermittent renal replacement therapy (PIRRT) is a recently defined acute modality for critically ill patients, and in theory combines the superior detoxification and haemodynamic stability of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) with the operational convenience and low cost of intermittent haemodialysis (iHD). We performed a retrospective cohort study for all critically ill adults treated with renal replacement therapy at our centre in Auckland, New Zealand from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2008. The exposure of interest was modality (PIRRT, CRRT, iHD). Primary and secondary outcomes were patient mortality determined at hospital discharge and 90 days post renal replacement therapy inception, respectively. Co-variates included co-morbidity and baseline illness severity measured by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV and Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and time-varying illness severity measured by daily SOFA scores. We used Marginal Structural Modelling to estimate mortality risk adjusting for both time-varying illness severity and modality exposure. A total of 146 patients with 633 treatment-days had sufficient data for modelling. With PIRRT as the reference, the adjusted hazard ratios for patient hospital mortality were 1.31 (0.60 to 2.90) for CRRT and 1.22 (0.21 to 2.29) for iHD. Corresponding estimates for mortality at 90 days were 0.96 (0.39 to 2.36) and 2.22 (0.49 to 10.11), respectively, reflecting the poorer longer-term prognosis of patients still on iHD at hospital discharge with delayed or non-recovery of acute kidney injury. Our study supports the recent increased use of PIRRT, which within limits can be regarded as safe and effective.
<b>INTRODUCTION: </b>Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with a high mortality of up to 60%. The mode of renal replacement therapy (intermittent versus continuous) has no impact on patient survival. Sustained low efficiency dialysis using a single-pass batch dialysis system (SLED-BD) has recently been introduced for the treatment of dialysis-dependent AKI. To date, however, only limited evidence is available in the comparison of SLED-BD versus continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with AKI.<b>METHODS: </b>Prospective, randomized, interventional, clinical study at a surgical intensive care unit of a university hospital. Between 1 April 2006 and 31 January 2009, 232 AKI patients who underwent renal replacement therapy (RRT) were randomized in the study. Follow-up was assessed until 30 August 2009. Patients were either assigned to 12-h SLED-BD or to 24-h predilutional CVVH. Both therapies were performed at a blood flow of 100 to 120 ml/min.<b>RESULTS: </b>115 patients were treated with SLED-BD (total number of treatments n = 817) and 117 patients with CVVH (total number of treatments n = 877).The primary outcome measure, 90-day mortality, was similar between groups (SLED: 49.6% vs. CVVH: 55.6%, P = 0.43). Hemodynamic stability did not differ between SLED-BD and CVVH, whereas patients in the SLED-BD group had significantly fewer days of mechanical ventilation (17.7 ± 19.4 vs. 20.9 ± 19.8, P = 0.047) and fewer days in the ICU (19.6 ± 20.1 vs. 23.7 ± 21.9, P = 0.04). Patients treated with SLED needed fewer blood transfusions (1,375 ± 2,573 ml vs. 1,976 ± 3,316 ml, P = 0.02) and had a substantial reduction in nursing time spent for renal replacement therapy (P < 0.001) resulting in lower costs.<b>CONCLUSIONS: </b>SLED-BD was associated with reduced nursing time and lower costs compared to CVVH at similar outcomes. In the light of limited health care resources, SLED-BD offers an attractive alternative for the treatment of AKI in ICU patients.<b>Trial Registration: </b>ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00322530.
We conducted a prospective, randomized study to compare conventional continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) with sustained hemodiafiltration (SHDF) using an acetate-free dialysate. Fifty critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) who required renal replacement therapy were treated with either CVVHDF or SHDF. CVVDHF was performed using a conventional dialysate with an effluent rate of 25 mL·kg(-1) · (h-1), and SHDF was performed using an acetate-free dialysate with a flow rate of 300-500 mL/min. The primary study outcome, 30 d survival rate was 76.0% in the CVVHDF arm and 88.0% in the SHDF arm (NS). Both the number of patients who showed renal recovery (40.0% and 68.0%, CVVHDF and SHDF, resp.; P < .05), and the hospital stay length (42.3 days and 33.7 days, CVVHDF and SHDF, resp.; P < .05), significantly differed between the two treatments. Although the total convective volumes did not significantly differ, the dialysate flow rate was higher and mean duration of daily treatment was shorter in the SHDF treatment arm. Our results suggest that compared with conventional CVVHDF, more intensive renal support in the form of post-dilution SHDF with acetate-free dialysate may accelerate renal recovery in critically ill patients with AKI.
BACKGROUND: Minimization of hemodynamic instability during renal replacement therapy (RRT) in patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) is often challenging. We examined the relative hemodynamic tolerability of sustained low efficiency dialysis (SLED) and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in critically ill patients with AKI. We also compared the feasibility of SLED administration with that of CRRT and intermittent hemodialysis (IHD).
METHODS: This cohort study encompassed four critical care units within a single university-affiliated medical centre. 77 consecutive critically ill patients with AKI who were treated with CRRT (n = 30), SLED (n = 13) or IHD (n = 34) and completed at least two RRT sessions were included in the study. Overall, 223 RRT sessions were analyzed. Hemodynamic instability during a given session was defined as the composite of a > 20% reduction in mean arterial pressure or any escalation in pressor requirements. Treatment feasibility was evaluated based on the fraction of the prescribed therapy time that was delivered. An interrupted session was designated if < 90% of the prescribed time was administered. Generalized estimating equations were used to compare the hemodynamic tolerability of SLED vs CRRT while accounting for within-patient clustering of repeated sessions and key confounders.
RESULTS: Hemodynamic instability occurred during 22 (56.4%) SLED and 43 (50.0%) CRRT sessions (p = 0.51). In a multivariable analysis that accounted for clustering of multiple sessions within the same patient, the odds ratio for hemodynamic instability with SLED was 1.20 (95% CI 0.58-2.47), as compared to CRRT. Session interruption occurred in 16 (16.3), 30 (34.9) and 11 (28.2) of IHD, CRRT and SLED therapies, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with AKI, the administration of SLED is feasible and provides comparable hemodynamic control to CRRT.
Despite improvements in medical care, the mortality of critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) who require renal replacement therapy (RRT) remains high. We describe a new approach, sustained hemodiafiltration, to treat patients who suffered from acute kidney injury and were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). In our study, 60 critically ill patients with AKI who required RRT were treated with either continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) or sustained hemodiafiltration (S-HDF). The former was performed by administering a postfilter replacement fluid at an effluent rate of 35 mL/kg/h, and the latter was performed by administering a postfilter replacement fluid at a dialysate-flow rate of 300-500 mL/min. The S-HDF was delivered on a daily basis. The baseline characteristics of the patients in the two treatment groups were similar. The primary study outcome--survival until discharge from the ICU or survival for 30 days, whichever was earlier--did not significantly differ between the two groups: 70% after CVVHDF and 87% after S-HDF. The hospital-survival rate after CVVHDF was 63% and that after S-HDF was 83% (P < 0.05). The number of patients who showed renal recovery at the time of discharge from the ICU and the hospital and the duration of the ICU stay significantly differed between the two treatments (P < 0.05). Although there was no significant difference between the mean number of treatments performed per patient, the mean duration of daily treatment in the S-HDF group was 6.5 +/- 1.0 h, which was significantly shorter. Although the total convective volumes--the sum of the replacement-fluid and fluid-removal volumes--did not differ significantly, the dialysate-flow rate was higher in the S-HDF group. Our results suggest that in comparison with conventional continuous RRT, including high-dose CVVHDF, more intensive renal support in the form of postdilution S-HDF will decrease the mortality and accelerate renal recovery in critically ill patients with AKI.
OBJECTIVE: Comparative study to evaluate the impact of a hybrid renal replacement technique (HRRT) vs a continuous renal replacement technique (haemodiafiltration) on hemodynamic tolerance, azotemic control, and mortality in critical care patients with acute renal failure.
SETTING: a 14-bed Intensive Care Unit (ICU).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two groups of patients were retrospectively compared: patients submitted to continuous renal replacement techniques (CRRT) in 2003 (n = 26) and patients who underwent HRRT in 2004 (n = 27). Both groups had similar severity scores and underlying diseases, and were haemodynamically unstable. Urea and creatinine reduction ratio (URR and CRR) in both groups were evaluated.
RESULTS: Patients treated with HRRT presented a lower mortality (62% vs 84%), less heparin use, and a higher URR and CRR. Univariate logistic regression showed that an increase in APACHE II was related to an increase in mortality (CI 95%, 1.03-1.26). Odds for mortality for CRRT group were about 3 times higher (CI 95%, 0.86-12.11), but not statistically significant (p = 0.074).
CONCLUSION: HRRT is a valid alternative to CRRT in haemodynamically unstable critically ill patients.
Hemodialysis (HD) for critically ill patients with acute renal failure has been provided as intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) or continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). IHD is often complicated by hypotension and inadequate fluid removal, and CRRT by high cost of solutions and problems with anticoagulation. Sustained low-efficiency daily dialysis (SLED) has been suggested as an alternative treatment. This is an observational, prospective pilot study describing the introduction of SLED at our institution. We compared SLED (23 patients, 165 treatments) with CRRT (11 patients, 209 days), focusing on cost, anticoagulation, and small solute removal. SLED consisted of 8 h of HD 6 days a week, with blood flow of 200 ml/min, dialysate flows of 350 ml/min, and hemofiltration with 1 l of saline/h. CRRT patients were anticoagulated with either heparin or citrate, and SLED patients with either heparin or saline flushes. The weekly costs to the hospital were $1431 for SLED, $2607 for CRRT with heparin, and $3089 for CRRT with citrate. Sixty-five percent of SLED treatments were heparin-free; filter clotting occurred in 18% of heparin treatments and 29% of heparin-free treatments (NS). Weekly Kt/V was significantly higher for SLED (8.4+/-1.8) and time-averaged serum creatinine was lower; equivalent renal clearance (EKRjc) was 29+/-6 ml/min for SLED, similar to that for CRRT. In summary, SLED may be routinely performed without anticoagulation; it provides solute removal equivalent to CRRT at significantly lower cost.
To investigate the efficacy, safety and cost of treating patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) and diabetic nephropathy (DN) with continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) or sustained low-efficiency daily diafiltration with hemofiltration (SLEDD-f).
SUBJECTS AND METHODS:
Medical records of patients with AKI/DN from January 2006 to December 2012 were reviewed. Fifty-five patients who received CRRT and 52 who received SLEDD-f were included in the study. CRRT and SLEDD-f were performed for 20-72 h per session and 8-10 h per session, respectively. Mortality and renal function recovery rates were evaluated 30 days after the initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) and APACHE-II and SOFA scores, anticoagulant dose, inflammatory indices and cost were calculated at baseline and at the end of RRT.
RESULTS:
Of the 55 patients treated with CRRT, 49 (89.1%) had a 30-day survival rate and 30 (54.5%) had a 30-day renal recovery rate. Of the 52 patients with SLEDD-f, these rates were 92.3% (n = 48) and 61.5% (n = 32), respectively. The dosage of low-molecular-weight heparin in the CRRT and SLEDD-f groups was 15,230 ± 1,460 and 6,320 ± 490 U/day, respectively. The cost of hemopurification and the total cost for patients treated with CRRT was CNY 28,628 ± 5,576 (USD 4,210 ± 820) and CNY 38,828 ± 6,324 (USD 5,710 ± 930), respectively. These were higher than those for patients treated with SLEDD-f at CNY 13,260 ± 1,564 (USD 1,950 ± 230) and CNY 19,720 ± 2,652 (USD 2,900 ± 390), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS:
SLEDD-f offered a similar chance of renal recovery and also had further advantages such as a lower heparin dosage, a shorter therapy time and lower hospitalization costs for patients than CRRT. Studies with larger, randomized sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings.
