• Farhan AlEnezi, Waeed Alhazzani, Jinhui Ma, Safouq Alanazi, Mary Salib, Menat Attia, Lehana Thabane, and Alison Fox-Robichaud.
• Can. Respir. J. 2014 May 1; 21 (3): 176-80.

BackgroundStudies comparing continuous renal replacement therapy modalities are lacking. Theoretically, continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) could be more effective than continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF), and may be associated with fewer complications; however, there are no published data to support this hypothesis.ObjectiveTo examine the effect of CVVH on mortality and other clinically important outcomes compared with CVVHDF in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting.MethodsUsing a log of all continuous renal replacement therapy performed at a Canadian tertiary centre between 2007 and 2010, the records of patients meeting the inclusion criteria of being admitted to the ICU, and receiving either CVVH or CVVHDF for management of acute renal failure, were reviewed. The information retrieved included demographic data, death events, and hospital and ICU length of stay.ResultsData from 153 patients were included in the present study. Hospital and 30-day mortality were similar in the CVVH and CVVHDF groups (OR 0.85 [95% CI 0.38 to 1.89]; P=0.69 and OR 1.35 [95% CI 0.62 to 2.95]; P=0.45, respectively). There was no difference in hospital length of stay (mean difference -34.14 [95% CI -72.92 to 4.65]; P=0.08).ConclusionThe present retrospective review suggests that the use of CVVH does not reduce mortality or hospital length of stay when compared with CVVHDF. Future randomized trials should control for different patient populations and continue to evaluate the removal of small molecules such as hormones.

23 keywords...

hide…