Patient and kidney survival by dialysis modality in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury.

Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anesthesiology, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo - Japan.
The International journal of artificial organs (Impact Factor: 1.45). 05/2007; 30(4):281-92.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Using a large, international cohort, we sought to determine the effect of initial technique of renal replacement therapy (RRT) on the outcome of acute renal failure (ARF) in the intensive care unit (ICU). We enrolled 1218 patients treated with continuous RRT (CRRT) or intermittent RRT (IRRT) for ARF in 54 ICUs in 23 countries. We obtained demographic, biochemical and clinical data and followed patients to either death or hospital discharge. Information was analyzed to assess the independent impact of treatment choice on survival and renal recovery. Patients treated first with CRRT (N=1006, 82.6%) required vasopressor drugs and mechanical ventilation more frequently compared to those receiving IRRT (N=212, 17.4%), (p<0.0001). Unadjusted hospital survival was lower (35.8% vs. 51.9%, p<0.0001). However, unadjusted dialysis-independence at hospital discharge was higher after CRRT (85.5% vs. 66.2%, p<0.0001). Multivariable logistic regression showed that choice of CRRT was not an independent predictor of hospital survival or dialysis-free hospital survival. However, the choice of CRRT was a predictor of dialysis independence at hospital discharge among survivors (OR: 3.333, 95% CI: 1.845 - 6.024, p<0.0001). Further adjustment using a propensity score did not significantly change these results. We conclude that worldwide, the choice of CRRT as initial therapy is not a predictor of hospital survival or dialysis-free hospital survival but is an independent predictor of renal recovery among survivors.

Download full-text


Available from: Noel Gibney, Jul 01, 2015
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Long-term outcome--mortality, morbidity and quality of life--is finally receiving attention in the field of intensive care research. A number of recent studies have focused on patient survival and kidney survival after acute renal failure. The present review focuses on the third publication from the Beginning and Ending Supportive Therapy for the Kidney Investigators Writing Committee. Their study took place in 54 intensive care units in 23 countries. The main findings of the Beginning and Ending Supportive Therapy study was that the choice of continuous renal replacement therapy as the initial therapy is not a predictor of hospital survival or of dialysis-free hospital survival, but that it is an independent predictor of renal recovery among survivors. In conclusion, the critical care research community needs to focus on long-term outcome. A number of recent studies of acute renal failure have done just that.
    Critical care (London, England) 02/2007; 11(4):147. DOI:10.1186/cc5959
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Das akute Nierenversagen (ANV) ist eine häufige Komplikation in der Intensivmedizin. Die Inzidenz des ANV ist steigend, die Letalität unverändert hoch. In Europa haben sich zur Therapie des ANV die kontinuierlichen Hämofiltrationsverfahren („continuous renal replacement therapy“, CRRT) mit einem Behandlungsanteil von 80% durchgesetzt. Der Vorteil der CRRT liegt insbesondere bei Patienten im Multiorganversagen in einer größeren Kreislaufstabilität und besseren Volumensteuerung als bei der klassischen Hämodialyse („intermittend hemodialysis“, IHD). Ob die CRRT der IHD bezüglich der Letalität auf der „intensive care unit“ (ICU) oder im Krankenhaus überlegen ist, ist bislang unklar. Untersuchungen aus dem Jahr 2000 zeigten, dass die Letalität bei nichtseptisch bedingtem ANV bei einer initialen Filtrationsdosierung von 35ml/h×kgKG am niedrigsten ist. Ein aktueller Ansatz ist die langsame kontinuierliche Dialyse („slow extended daily dialysis“, SLEDD), die die Vorteile der CRRT mit denen der IHD verbindet. Auch hier ist eine Verbesserung des Outcomes bislang nicht belegt. Eine abschließende, evidenzbasierte Empfehlung zur Dosierung der CRRT oder eine definitive Antwort auf die Frage, ob eine tägliche IHD sinnvoller ist als eine CRRT, wird wahrscheinlich erst nach Abschluss zweier laufender, multizentrischer Studien möglich sein [VA/NIH Acute Renal Failure Trial Network (ATN) Study sowie Augmented Versus Normal Renal Replacement Therapy in Severe Acute Renal Failure Study (ANZICS 2005) Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Group]. Acute renal failure is a common complication in intensive care medicine. While the incidence of acute renal failure increases, mortality still remains at a high level. In Europe continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) has become the standard treatment for acute renal failure. Continuous renal replacement therapy has the advantage of achieving a more stable haemodynamic situation and an easier volume management compared to intermittent haemodialysis (IHD). Until now there has been no evidence to suggest that either classical IHD or CRRT is superior in reducing mortality. Using CRRT in patients with acute renal failure, an ultrafiltration rate adjusted to the patient’s bodyweight at 35ml/kg×h is recommended. A new approach in renal replacement therapy is the slow extended daily dialysis (SLEDD), which combines the advantages of CRRT and IHD. First results are promising, but further investigations are needed to show whether outcome can be improved. A final evidence-based recommendation on the dosing of CRRT or a definitive answer to the question whether daily IHD is better than CRRT, can probably only be possible after two running multicentre studies, the VA/NIH Acute Renal Failure Trial Network (ATN) study and the Augmented Versus Normal Renal Replacement Therapy in Severe Acute Renal Failure Study (ANZICS 2005) Australia and New Zealand Intensive Care Group.
    Der Anaesthesist 10/2007; 56(11):1105-1114. DOI:10.1007/s00101-007-1279-5 · 0.74 Impact Factor