H Morimatsu1, S Uchino, R Bellomo, C Ronco. 1. Department of Intensive Care and Department of Medicine, Austin & Repatriation Medical Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Different techniques of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) might have different effects on electrolyte and acid-base control. The aim of this study was to determine whether continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) or continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) achieve better control of serum sodium, potassium and bicarbonate concentrations. DESIGN: Retrospective controlled study. SETTING: Two tertiary intensive care units. PATIENTS: Critically ill patients with acute renal failure (ARF) treated with CVVHDF (n=49) or CVVH (n=50). INTERVENTIONS: Retrieval of daily morning sodium and potassium values and arterial bicarbonate levels from computerized biochemical records before and after the initiation of CRRT for up to 2 weeks of treatment. Statistical comparison of findings. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Before treatment, abnormal (high or low) values were frequently observed for sodium (65.1% for CVVHDF vs. 80.0% for CVVH; NS), potassium (45.9% vs. 34.0%; NS), and bicarbonate (73.3% vs. 68.0%; NS). After treatment, however, CVVHDF was more likely to achieve serum sodium concentrations within the normal range (74.1% vs. 62.9%; p=0.0026). Both treatments decreased the mean serum potassium concentration over the first 48 h (p=0.0059 and p<0.0001, respectively), but there was no difference in terms of the normalization of serum potassium concentration during the entire treatment period (88.3% vs. 90.5%; NS). Both treatments increased the mean arterial bicarbonate concentration over the first 48 hours (p=0.011 and p<0.0001, respectively). However, CVVH was associated with a lower incidence of metabolic acidosis (13.8% for CVVH vs. 34.5% for CVVHDF; p<0.0001) and a higher incidence of metabolic alkalosis (38.9% vs. 1.1%; p<0.0001) during the entire treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: CRRT strategies based on different techniques have a significantly different impact on sodium and bicarbonate control.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Different techniques of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) might have different effects on electrolyte and acid-base control. The aim of this study was to determine whether continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) or continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) achieve better control of serum sodium, potassium and bicarbonate concentrations. DESIGN: Retrospective controlled study. SETTING: Two tertiary intensive care units. PATIENTS: Critically illpatients with acute renal failure (ARF) treated with CVVHDF (n=49) or CVVH (n=50). INTERVENTIONS: Retrieval of daily morning sodium and potassium values and arterial bicarbonate levels from computerized biochemical records before and after the initiation of CRRT for up to 2 weeks of treatment. Statistical comparison of findings. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Before treatment, abnormal (high or low) values were frequently observed for sodium (65.1% for CVVHDF vs. 80.0% for CVVH; NS), potassium (45.9% vs. 34.0%; NS), and bicarbonate (73.3% vs. 68.0%; NS). After treatment, however, CVVHDF was more likely to achieve serum sodium concentrations within the normal range (74.1% vs. 62.9%; p=0.0026). Both treatments decreased the mean serum potassium concentration over the first 48 h (p=0.0059 and p<0.0001, respectively), but there was no difference in terms of the normalization of serum potassium concentration during the entire treatment period (88.3% vs. 90.5%; NS). Both treatments increased the mean arterial bicarbonate concentration over the first 48 hours (p=0.011 and p<0.0001, respectively). However, CVVH was associated with a lower incidence of metabolic acidosis (13.8% for CVVH vs. 34.5% for CVVHDF; p<0.0001) and a higher incidence of metabolic alkalosis (38.9% vs. 1.1%; p<0.0001) during the entire treatment period. CONCLUSIONS: CRRT strategies based on different techniques have a significantly different impact on sodium and bicarbonate control.
Authors: Andrew S Allegretti; Jennifer E Flythe; Vinod Benda; Emily S Robinson; David M Charytan Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Torsten Slowinski; Stanislao Morgera; Michael Joannidis; Thomas Henneberg; Reto Stocker; Elin Helset; Kirsti Andersson; Markus Wehner; Justyna Kozik-Jaromin; Sarah Brett; Julia Hasslacher; John F Stover; Harm Peters; Hans-H Neumayer; Detlef Kindgen-Milles Journal: Crit Care Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 9.097