BACKGROUND: There is controversy as to whether haemodialysis-membrane biocompatibility (ie, the potential to activate complement and neutrophils) influences mortality of patients with acute renal failure. We did a prospective randomised multicentre trial in patients with dialysis-dependent acute renal failure treated with two different types of low-flux membrane. METHODS:180 patients with acute renal failure were randomly assigned bioincompatible Cuprophan (n=90) or polymethyl-methacrylate (n=90) membranes. The main outcome was survival 14 days after the end of therapy (treatment success). Odds ratios for survival were calculated and the two groups were compared by Fisher's exact test. Analyses were based on patients treated according to protocol (76 Cuprophan, 84 polymethyl methacrylate). FINDINGS: At the start of dialysis, the groups did not differ significantly in age, sex, severity of illness (as calculated by APACHE II scores), prevalence of oliguria, or biochemical measures of acute renal failure. 44 patients (58% [95% CI 46-69]) assigned Cuprophan membranes and 50 patients (60% [48-70]) assigned polymethyl-methacrylate membranes survived. The odds ratio for treatment failure on Cuprophan compared with polymethyl-methacrylate membranes was 1.07 (0.54-2.11; p=0.87). No difference between Cuprophan and polymethyl-methacrylate membranes was detected when the analysis was adjusted for age and APACHE II score. 18 patients in the Cuprophan group and 20 in thepolymethyl-methacrylate group had clinical complications of therapy (mainly hypotension). INTERPRETATION: There were no differences in outcome for patients with dialysis-dependent acute renal failure between those treated with Cuprophan membranes and those treated with polymethyl-methacrylate membranes.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: There is controversy as to whether haemodialysis-membrane biocompatibility (ie, the potential to activate complement and neutrophils) influences mortality of patients with acute renal failure. We did a prospective randomised multicentre trial in patients with dialysis-dependent acute renal failure treated with two different types of low-flux membrane. METHODS: 180 patients with acute renal failure were randomly assigned bioincompatible Cuprophan (n=90) or polymethyl-methacrylate (n=90) membranes. The main outcome was survival 14 days after the end of therapy (treatment success). Odds ratios for survival were calculated and the two groups were compared by Fisher's exact test. Analyses were based on patients treated according to protocol (76 Cuprophan, 84 polymethyl methacrylate). FINDINGS: At the start of dialysis, the groups did not differ significantly in age, sex, severity of illness (as calculated by APACHE II scores), prevalence of oliguria, or biochemical measures of acute renal failure. 44 patients (58% [95% CI 46-69]) assigned Cuprophan membranes and 50 patients (60% [48-70]) assigned polymethyl-methacrylate membranes survived. The odds ratio for treatment failure on Cuprophan compared with polymethyl-methacrylate membranes was 1.07 (0.54-2.11; p=0.87). No difference between Cuprophan and polymethyl-methacrylate membranes was detected when the analysis was adjusted for age and APACHE II score. 18 patients in the Cuprophan group and 20 in the polymethyl-methacrylate group had clinical complications of therapy (mainly hypotension). INTERPRETATION: There were no differences in outcome for patients with dialysis-dependent acute renal failure between those treated with Cuprophan membranes and those treated with polymethyl-methacrylate membranes.