Nierenersatztherapie beim Intensivpatienten

Standard versus high-dose CVVHDF for ICU-related acute renal failure.

Tolwani AJ, Campbell RC, Stofan BS, et al.                                                                                                        J Am Soc Nephrol 2008; 19:1233-8

Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.

The effect of dosage of continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) on survival in patients with acute renal failure (ARF) is unknown. In this study, 200 critically ill patients with ARF were randomly assigned to receive CVVHDF with prefilter replacement fluid at an effluent rate of either 35 ml/kg per h (high dosage) or 20 ml/kg per h (standard dosage). The primary study outcome, survival to the earlier of either intensive care unit discharge or 30 d, was 49% in the high-dosage arm and 56% in the standard-dosage arm (odds ratio 0.75; 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 1.32; P = 0.32). Among hospital survivors, 69% of those in the high-dosage arm recovered renal function compared with 80% of those in the standard-dosage arm (P = 0.29); therefore, a difference in patient survival or renal recovery was not detected between patients receiving high-dosage or standard-do­-sage CVVHDF.

Intensity of renal support in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury.

VA/NIH Acute Renal Failure Trial Network, Palevsky PM, Zhang JH, et al.                                                              N Engl J Med 2008; 359:7-20

BACKGROUND: The optimal intensity of renal-replacement therapy in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury is controversial.
METHODS: We randomly assigned critically ill patients with acute kidney injury and failure of at least one nonrenal organ or sepsis to receive intensive or less intensive renal-replacement therapy. The primary end point was death from any cause by day 60. In both study groups, hemodynamically stable patients underwent intermittent hemodialysis, and hemodynamically un­stable patients underwent continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration or sustained low-efficiency dialysis. Patients receiving the intensive treatment strategy underwent intermittent hemodialysis and sustained low-efficiency dialysis six times per week and continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration at 35 ml per kilogram of body weight per hour; for patients receiving the less-intensive treatment strategy, the corresponding treatments were provided thrice weekly and at 20 ml per kilogram per hour.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 1124 patients in the two groups were similar. The rate of death from any cause by day 60 was 53.6% with intensive therapy and 51.5% with less-intensive therapy (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 1.40; P=0.47). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the duration of renal-replacement therapy or the rate of recovery of kidney function or nonrenal organ fai­lure. Hypotension during intermittent dialysis occurred in more patients randomly assigned to receive intensive therapy, although the frequency of hemodialysis sessions complicated by hypotension was similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Intensive renal support in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury did not decrease mortality, improve recovery of kidney function, or reduce the rate of nonrenal organ failure as compared with less-intensive therapy involving a defined dose of intermittent hemodialysis three times per week and continuous renal-replacement therapy at 20 ml per kilogram per hour.