• I Baldwin, R Bellomo, T Naka, B Koch, and N Fealy.
• Department of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. ian.baldwin@austin.org.au
• Int J Artif Organs. 2007 Dec 1; 30 (12): 1083-9.

ObjectivesExtended intermittent dialytic techniques are increasingly being reported in the treatment of ARF in the ICU but few randomized controlled trials exist. We compared one such technique to a technique of continuous renal replacement therapy with regard to fluid removal and hemodynamics.MethodsSixteen critically ill patients with ARF were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial at the ICU of a tertiary hospital. We randomized eight patients to three consecutive days of treatment with either Extended Daily Dialysis with filtration (EDDf) or Continuous Veno-Venous Hemofiltration (CVVH) and compared fluid removal and hemodynamics during treatment.ResultsA total of 16.6 liters of fluid were removed during EDDf (830 mL/day over 20 treatment days) compared with 15.4 liters (700 ml/day over 22 treatment days) during CVVH. Median fluid removal per day was 1837 mL in the EDDf group compared with 1410 mL per day in the CVVH group, p=0.674. Median hourly fluid removal rate was 252 mL for EDDf and 128 mL for CVVH (p<0.01). Mean arterial pressure in the EDDf group was lower at two hours after starting treatment (76 mmHg vs. 94 mmHg) in the CVVH group; p= 0.031. There was no significant difference between groups for heart rate, CVP and noradrenaline dose at all time intervals measured.ConclusionsAdequate prescribed fluid removal was achieved with both techniques. However, as expected, fluid was removed at a faster rate during EDDf. This was initially associated with a lower blood pressure than during CVVH where blood pressure increased.

16 keywords...

hide…