Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) or intermittent hemodialysis (IHD)--what is the procedure of choice in critically ill patients?

Although at present there is no prospective randomized study which could show significantly better survival of patients on continuous procedures, the majority of intensivists advocate this technique of renal function replacement due to generally accepted opinion that it has less effect on circulation of already hemodynamically unstable patients. In our prospective randomized study with 104 patients, we also did not observe any difference in 28 days survival, in total survival, as well as in circulatory instability between two treatment modalities. Even in subgroup of 80 patients with sepsis and septic shock there were no difference in survival. Sepsis was the underlying disorder in 52 and septic shock in 28 patients out of 104 patients analyzed in this study. Our prospective randomized study did not show a statistically significant difference between the two methods of renal replacement therapy. Survival rates were not affected and neither was the occurrence of hemodynamic instability. We believe that both methods are complementary; IHD for faster elimination of electrolytes and waste products elimination, CRRT for regulation of higher calories requirements and for hemodynamically unstable patients. The expectations that one method is superior to the other in the term of better survival have not been corroborated by the current data available in the literature. The choice of the method should be individualized. ARF, which is an integral part of MOF, is a problem frequently encountered in critically ill patient treated in the ICU, but outcome of these patients depends closely on the control of basic event. Evaluation of each of the supportive procedures is therefore hindered by the fact that the underlying disease has the crucial effect on survival and the type of supportive procedure less so.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes