Ian Baldwin1,2, Toshio Naka3, Bill Koch4, Nigel Fealy3, Rinaldo Bellomo3. 1. Department of Intensive Care, Austin Health, 3084, Heidelberg, Australia. ian.baldwin@austin.org.au. 2. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Department of Gerontic Nursing, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. ian.baldwin@austin.org.au. 3. Department of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. 4. School of Nursing and Midwifery, Department of Gerontic Nursing, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Continuous veno-venous haemofiltration (CVVH) is an established treatment for acute renal failure (ARF). Recently, extended intermittent dialytic techniques have been proposed for the treatment of ARF. The aim of this study was to compare these two approaches. SETTING:Intensive care unit of tertiary hospital. SUBJECTS:Sixteen critically ill patients with ARF. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. INTERVENTION: We randomised sixteen patients to three consecutive days of treatment with either CVVH (8) or extended daily dialysis with filtration (EDDf) (8) and compared small-solute, electrolyte and acid-base control. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two therapies for urea or creatinine levels over 3 days. Of 80 electrolyte measurements taken before treatment, 19 were abnormal. All values were corrected as a result of treatment, except for one patient in the CVVH group who developed hypophosphataemia (0.54 mmol/l) at 72 h. After 3 days of treatment, there was a mild but persistent metabolic acidosis in the EDDf group compared to the CVVH group (median bicarbonate: 20 mmol/l vs. 29 mmol/l: p=0.039; median base deficit: -4 mEq/l vs. -2.1 mEq/l, p=0.033). CONCLUSIONS:CVVH and EDDf as prescribed achieved similar control of urea, creatinine and electrolytes. Acidosis was better controlled with CVVH.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Continuous veno-venous haemofiltration (CVVH) is an established treatment for acute renal failure (ARF). Recently, extended intermittent dialytic techniques have been proposed for the treatment of ARF. The aim of this study was to compare these two approaches. SETTING: Intensive care unit of tertiary hospital. SUBJECTS: Sixteen critically illpatients with ARF. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. INTERVENTION: We randomised sixteen patients to three consecutive days of treatment with either CVVH (8) or extended daily dialysis with filtration (EDDf) (8) and compared small-solute, electrolyte and acid-base control. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two therapies for urea or creatinine levels over 3 days. Of 80 electrolyte measurements taken before treatment, 19 were abnormal. All values were corrected as a result of treatment, except for one patient in the CVVH group who developed hypophosphataemia (0.54 mmol/l) at 72 h. After 3 days of treatment, there was a mild but persistent metabolic acidosis in the EDDf group compared to the CVVH group (median bicarbonate: 20 mmol/l vs. 29 mmol/l: p=0.039; median base deficit: -4 mEq/l vs. -2.1 mEq/l, p=0.033). CONCLUSIONS:CVVH and EDDf as prescribed achieved similar control of urea, creatinine and electrolytes. Acidosis was better controlled with CVVH.
Authors: M Kihara; Y Ikeda; K Shibata; S Masumori; H Fujita; H Ebira; Y Toya; N Takagi; H Shionoiri; S Umemura Journal: Nephron Date: 1994 Impact factor: 2.847
Authors: Jason A Roberts; Jonathan Field; Adam Visser; Rosemary Whitbread; Mandy Tallot; Jeffrey Lipman; Carl M J Kirkpatrick Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2010-06-14 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; François Lemaire; Herwig Gerlach; Johan Groeneveld; Goran Hedenstierna; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Philipp Metnitz; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2008-01-04 Impact factor: 17.440