ArticlesContinuous venovenous haemodiafiltration versus intermittent haemodialysis for acute renal failure in patients with multiple-organ dysfunction syndrome: a multicentre randomised trial
Introduction
Since the first description of continuous arteriovenous haemofiltration in 1977, continuous renal replacement therapy has gained wide acceptance for the treatment of acute renal failure in intensive care.1 Proponents of continuous renal replacement therapy commonly advocate that continuous techniques provide better haemodynamic stability than with intermittent haemodialysis. Since improved systemic haemodynamics might be associated with fewer episodes of renal ischaemia, continuous renal replacement therapy might reduce the time to recovery of renal function and even result in increased survival.2
Whether or not continuous renal replacement therapy improves outcome compared with intermittent haemodialysis is controversial. Several groups have compared both methods, but mostly in non-randomised, retrospective trials,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 which often compared continuous renal replacement therapy using synthetic membranes with intermittent haemodialysis with cuprophan membranes.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 These groups showed a trend toward improved survival with continuous renal replacement therapy despite raised severity scores in this group. Three prospective randomised studies comparing continuous renal replacement therapy with intermittent haemodialysis were inconclusive.9, 10, 11 Mehta and colleagues9 reported higher death rates in their continuous renal replacement therapy group; however, the two groups were unbalanced for several covariates that are independently associated with mortality (sex, hepatic failure, and organ system failure and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation III [APACHE III] scores) in favour of intermittent haemodialysis. After adjustment for these covariates, there was no difference in death rates between the two treatments. The two other studies did not show any survival improvement with continuous renal replacement therapy, but these studies were under powered.10, 11 Two recent meta-analyses12, 13 also did not show any significant difference in outcome between patients given continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent haemodialysis.
In addition to limitations inherent to the retrospective and uncontrolled design of most of these studies, other factors including the technique of continuous renal replacement therapy, the use of different membranes, and the absence of standardisation of dialysis protocols preclude meaningful interpretation of these results. Our aim was, therefore, to compare the effect of continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent haemodialysis with polyacrylonitrile membranes on survival in patients with acute renal failure as part of multiple-organ dysfunction syndrome.
Section snippets
Patients
From Oct 1, 1999, to March 3, 2003, we did a prospective randomised, non-blinded trial in 21 medical or multidisciplinary intensive-care units from university or community hospitals in France. The selected centres routinely used continuous renal replacement therapy and intermittent haemodialysis to treat acute renal failure in acutely ill patients. The study was approved by the local ethics committee and was regulated by an independent data safety and monitoring board. We obtained written
Results
Figure 1 shows the trial profile and table 1 the baseline characteristics of the participants. Treatment modalities are shown in table 2. On the basis of mean dialysis flow, mean ultrafiltration flow, and weight, and accounting for the predilutional infusion, the average dose of continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration was 29 mL/kg per h (SD 11) (table 2). There are no available data for dialysis dose in intermittent haemodialysis group. The mean number of intermittent haemodialysis sessions
Discussion
In this randomised study, we compared continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration with intermittent haemodialysis for the treatment of acute renal failure in multiple-organ-dysfunction syndrome and showed no difference in survival at any time, incidence and time to recovery of renal function, or occurrence of adverse events (apart from hypothermia). In view of the long hospital stay of critically ill patients with multiple-organ-dysfunction syndrome, the primary endpoint of the study was 60-day
References (33)
- et al.
A randomized clinical trial of continuous versus intermittent dialysis for acute renal failure
Kidney Int
(2001) - et al.
A randomized controlled trial comparing intermittent with continuous dialysis in patients with ARF
Am J Kidney Dis
(2004) - et al.
Acute renal failure in the intensive care unit: a systematic review of the impact of dialytic modality on mortality and renal recovery
Am J Kidney Dis
(2002) - et al.
Effects of different dose in continuous veno-venous haemofiltration on outcomes of acute renal failure: a prospective randomised trial
Lancet
(2000) - et al.
Establishing a dialysis therapy/patient outcome link in intensive care unit dialysis for patients with acute renal failure
Am J Kidney Dis
(1996) - et al.
Measurement of the delivery of dialysis in acute renal failure
Kidney Int
(1999) History and development of continuous renal replacement techniques
Kidney Int Suppl
(1998)- et al.
Continuous renal replacement therapy in the intensive care unit
Intensive Care Med
(1999) - et al.
Conventional dialysis versus acute continuous hemodiafiltration
ASAIO J
(1992) - et al.
Severe acute renal failure: comparison of acute continuous hemodiafiltration and conventional dialytic therapy
Nephron
(1995)
Acute dialytic support for the critically ill: intermittent dialysis versus continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration
Am J Nephrol
A comparison of continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration and intermittent hemodialysis in acute renal failure patients in intensive care unit
ASAIO J
Continuous versus intermittent treatment: clinical results in acute renal failure
Contrib Nephrol
Intermittent versus continuous renal replacement therapy for acute renal failure in intensive care units: results from a multicenter prospective epidemiological survey
Intensive Care Med
Comparison of continuous and intermittent renal replacement therapy for acute renal failure
Nephrol Dial Transplant
Continuous versus intermittent renal replacement therapy: a meta-analysis
Intensive Care Med
Cited by (0)
- ‡
Group members are listed at end of report