Local experience with the use of sustained low efficiency dialysis for acute renal failure.
ABSTRACT Renal replacement therapy (RRT) is a common therapy used to treat critically ill patients in acute renal failure. Currently a number of dialysis modalities are used such as haemodialysis, continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), and sustained low efficiency dialysis (SLED). As SLED is a recently implemented RRT, very little literature is available on the nursing aspects of SLED. This paper shares the local nursing experience of using SLED, thus providing a nursing perspective. Between 2002 and 2006, 103 patients were treated with SLED resulting in 307 SLED treatments. Early problems encountered involved patient hypotension, dialysis catheter patency and water quality; all of which were overcome by initially commencing dialysis at a lower prescribed blood pump rate, using larger catheters and improving water quality. Nursing advantages of SLED over CRRT included being able to release the patient for nursing activities and patient transfer out of the ICU for investigations and procedures; reduced nursing workload related to less machine and patient monitoring during the dialysis procedure; and cost reduction. Disadvantages of SLED are related to poor water quality, accessibility of water supply and limited space to house the two machines required. SLED has proven to be a nurse friendly dialysis modality for critically ill patients with acute renal failure.
- SourceAvailable from: ndt.oxfordjournals.org[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Sustained low-efficiency daily dialysis (SLEDD) is an increasingly popular renal replacement therapy for intensive care unit (ICU) patients. SLEDD has been previously reported to provide good solute control and haemodynamic stability. However, continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is considered superior by many ICU practitioners, due first to the large amounts of convective clearance achieved and second to the ability to deliver treatment independently of nephrology services. We report on a program of sustained low-efficiency daily diafiltration (SLEDD-f) delivered autonomously by ICU nursing personnel, and benchmark solute clearance data with recently published reports that have provided dose-outcome relationships for renal replacement therapy in this population. SLEDD-f treatments were delivered using countercurrent dialysate flow at 200 ml/min and on-line haemofiltration at 100 ml/min for 8 h on a daily or at least alternate day basis. All aspects of SLEDD-f were managed by ICU nursing personnel. Clinical parameters, patient outcomes and solute levels were monitored. Kt/V, corrected equivalent renal urea clearance (EKRc) and theoretical Kt/V(B12) were calculated. Fifty-six SLEDD-f treatments in 24 critically ill acute renal failure patients were studied. There were no episodes of intradialytic hypotension or other complications. Observed hospital mortality was 46%, not significantly different from the expected mortality as determined from the APACHE II illness severity scoring system. Electrolyte control was excellent. Kt/V per completed treatment was 1.43+/-0.28 (0.96-2.0). Kt/V(B12) per completed treatment was 1.02+/-0.21 (0.6-1.38). EKRc for patients was 35.7+/-6.4 ml/min (25.0-48.2). SLEDD-f provides stable renal replacement therapy and good clinical outcomes. Logistic elements of SLEDD-f delivery by ICU nursing personnel are satisfactory. Small solute clearance is adequate by available standards for CRRT and intermittent haemodialysis, and larger solute clearance considerable. SLEDD-f is a viable alternative to CRRT in this setting.Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 05/2004; 19(4):877-84. · 3.37 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Acute kidney injury represents an independent risk of death in the intensive care unit and significantly contributes to in-hospital mortality. The only accepted treatment of severe acute kidney injury so far is renal replacement therapy, which is not a causative therapy but rather a life-support treatment. Renal replacement therapy can be performed by several different techniques: intermittent hemodialysis, slow extended daily dialysis, peritoneal dialysis, or continuous renal replacement therapy. There is controversy about which technique should be used, which dosage should be selected for each therapy, and whether the technique and/or the dose of renal replacement therapy may impact survival in critically ill patients. After a careful review of the recent literature, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn: Trials are in most cases underpowered and conducted over many years, in which significant changes in the practice of acute dialytic techniques have taken place. Other studies have described therapeutic modalities requiring a high level of specific expertise in the field and generally not easily reproducible in the routine practice. While practitioners are waiting for the ultimate trial to be published, we think it is worth reporting some broad concepts and few suggestions for renal replacement therapy prescription derived from current evidence and from the available experience.Critical care medicine 05/2008; 36(4 Suppl):S229-37. · 6.37 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Patients with critical illness commonly develop acute renal failure requiring mechanical support in the form of either continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) or intermittent hemodialysis (IRRT). As controversy exists regarding which modality should be used for most patients with critically illness, we sought to determine whether CRRT or IRRT is associated with better survival. We performed a meta-analysis of all prior randomized and observational studies that compared CRRT with IRRT. Studies were identified through a MEDLINE search, the authors' files, bibliographies of review articles, abstracts and proceedings of scientific meetings. Studies were assessed for baseline characteristics, intervention, outcome and overall quality through blinded review. The primary end-point was hospital mortality, assessed by cumulative relative risk (RR). We identified 13 studies ( n=1400), only three of which were randomized. Overall there was no difference in mortality (RR 0.93 (0.79-1.09), p=0.29). However, study quality was poor and only six studies compared groups of equal severity of illness at baseline (time of enrollment). Adjusting for study quality and severity of illness, mortality was lower in patients treated with CRRT (RR 0.72 (0.60-0.87), p<0.01). In the six studies with similar baseline severity, unadjusted mortality was also lower with CRRT (RR 0.48 (0.34 -0.69), p<0.0005). Current evidence is insufficient to draw strong conclusions regarding the mode of replacement therapy for acute renal failure in the critically ill. However, the life-saving potential with CRRT suggested in our secondary analyses warrants further investigation by a large, randomized trial.Intensive Care Medicine 01/2002; 28(1):29-37. · 5.26 Impact Factor