• R Bellomo, L Cole, J Reeves, and W Silvester.
• Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Austin and Repatriation Medical Centre, Melbourne, Australia. rb@austin.unimelb.edu.au
• Am. J. Kidney Dis. 1997 Nov 1;30(5 Suppl 4):S109-11.

AbstractThe arrival of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) has given the intensivist and the intensive care nurse the opportunity to treat acute renal failure (ARF) independently by giving them the necessary technology and taking CRRT away from absolute nephrological control. This structural shift has created a controversy between those countries where control of CRRT has completely shifted to the intensivist and those countries where nephrological input is still dominant. The argument in favor of intensivist-driven CRRT rests upon several observations, including the fact that therapy is continuous, as is the presence of the intensivist in the intensive care unit (ICU). Critically ill patients require rapid changes in treatment that are best directed by physicians who are at the bedside all the time. CRRT must be seen within the totality of patient care, and the intensivist can see the larger picture more accurately. Intensivists are successfully performing more and more procedures that were previously seen as part of other specialties and, last but not least, "closed" models of ICU care appear to work best. Australian intensivists have taken up CRRT from the start and now control it. Patient outcomes under such a system, as reported here, are above average, and confirm the effectiveness of such an approach.

14 keywords...

hide…