• R Vanholder, W Van Biesen, and N Lameire.
• Nephrology Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital, Gent, Belgium. raymond.vanholder@rug.ac.be
• J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2001 Feb 1;12 Suppl 17:S40-3.

AbstractRenal replacement therapy for the patient with acute renal failure on the intensive care unit can be offered in several different formats: intermittent hemodialysis (IHD), continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), and slow low-efficient daily dialysis (SLEDD). It is frequently claimed that CRRT offers several advantages over IHD, but most of these, such as correction of metabolic acidosis, better recovery of renal function, better clinical outcome due to application of biocompatible dialysis membranes, correction of malnutrition, and better removal of cytokines, are not corroborated by the results of controlled prospective studies. There is also no evidence that CRRT results in a better survival, compared with IHD. The only potential advantages of CRRT that stood the test of clinical evaluation (hemodynamic stability, correction of hypervolemia, better solute removal) can be offered as well by SLEDD. In addition, the latter strategy is less expensive because the same infrastructure is used as for IHD, while the patient is not immobilized continuously, which leaves time free for other activities such as nursing care and technical investigations. SLEDD is a relatively young technique, so thorough clinical studies are lacking. Nevertheless, the hypothesis is proposed that SLEDD offers a valuable alternative to the classical dialysis strategies, applied in the intensive care patient.

6 keywords...

hide…