OBJECTIVES: Extended intermittent dialytic techniques are increasingly being reported in the treatment of ARF in the ICU but few randomized controlled trials exist. We compared one such technique to a technique of continuous renal replacement therapy with regard to fluid removal and hemodynamics. METHODS:Sixteen critically ill patients with ARF were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial at the ICU of a tertiary hospital. We randomized eight patients to three consecutive days of treatment with either Extended Daily Dialysis with filtration (EDDf) or Continuous Veno-Venous Hemofiltration (CVVH) and compared fluid removal and hemodynamics during treatment. RESULTS: A total of 16.6 liters of fluid were removed during EDDf (830 mL/day over 20 treatment days) compared with 15.4 liters (700 ml/day over 22 treatment days) during CVVH. Median fluid removal per day was 1837 mL in the EDDf group compared with 1410 mL per day in the CVVH group, p=0.674. Median hourly fluid removal rate was 252 mL for EDDf and 128 mL for CVVH (p<0.01). Mean arterial pressure in the EDDf group was lower at two hours after starting treatment (76 mmHg vs. 94 mmHg) in the CVVH group; p= 0.031. There was no significant difference between groups for heart rate, CVP and noradrenaline dose at all time intervals measured. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate prescribed fluid removal was achieved with both techniques. However, as expected, fluid was removed at a faster rate during EDDf. This was initially associated with a lower blood pressure than during CVVH where blood pressure increased.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Extended intermittent dialytic techniques are increasingly being reported in the treatment of ARF in the ICU but few randomized controlled trials exist. We compared one such technique to a technique of continuous renal replacement therapy with regard to fluid removal and hemodynamics. METHODS: Sixteen critically ill patients with ARF were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial at the ICU of a tertiary hospital. We randomized eight patients to three consecutive days of treatment with either Extended Daily Dialysis with filtration (EDDf) or Continuous Veno-Venous Hemofiltration (CVVH) and compared fluid removal and hemodynamics during treatment. RESULTS: A total of 16.6 liters of fluid were removed during EDDf (830 mL/day over 20 treatment days) compared with 15.4 liters (700 ml/day over 22 treatment days) during CVVH. Median fluid removal per day was 1837 mL in the EDDf group compared with 1410 mL per day in the CVVH group, p=0.674. Median hourly fluid removal rate was 252 mL for EDDf and 128 mL for CVVH (p<0.01). Mean arterial pressure in the EDDf group was lower at two hours after starting treatment (76 mmHg vs. 94 mmHg) in the CVVH group; p= 0.031. There was no significant difference between groups for heart rate, CVP and noradrenaline dose at all time intervals measured. CONCLUSIONS: Adequate prescribed fluid removal was achieved with both techniques. However, as expected, fluid was removed at a faster rate during EDDf. This was initially associated with a lower blood pressure than during CVVH where blood pressure increased.
Authors: Heather E Fieghen; Jan O Friedrich; Karen E Burns; Rosane Nisenbaum; Neill K Adhikari; Michelle A Hladunewich; Stephen E Lapinsky; Robert M Richardson; Ron Wald Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2010-11-25 Impact factor: 2.388