Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration versus hemodialysis as renal replacement therapy in patients with acute renal failure in the intensive care unit.
Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2004; 38(5):417-21.SJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Hemodialysis (HD) and continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) have been adopted as forms of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in patients with acute renal failure (ARF). Although CVVHDF has many advantages, previous studies reported no definite improvement in survival rate compared to HD.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective study, 148 intensive care unit patients underwent HD (70 males, 25 females; mean age 45 +/- 17 years) or CVVHDF (42 males, 11 females; mean age 52 +/- 18 years). The severity of illness was estimated at the initiation of RRT and on the third day of RRT and presented using the APACHE III scoring system. The number of organ failures was checked at the initiation of RRT.

RESULTS

The survival rate was 46% in the HD group and 21% in the CVVHDF group (p = 0.002). CVVHDF was applied to the more severely ill patients, who had longer periods using a ventilator (p = 0.002) and/or vasopressor (p < 0.001), higher numbers of organ failures (p < 0.001) and higher initial APACHE III scores (p < 0.001). Among patients with APACHE III scores > 103, the survival rate was 13% in the CVVHDF group and 0% in the HD group. In patients with kidney failure and failure of two other organs, the survival rate was 9% in the HD group and 36% in the CVVHDF group (p = 0.035).

CONCLUSION

The mortality rate in the CVVHDF group was higher than that in the HD group, which may have been because CVVHDF was applied to the more severely ill patients. In contrast, CVVHDF may give a chance of survival to patients with APACHE III scores > 103 and may be more useful than HD in patients with failure of three or more organs.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, College of Medicine, University of Ulsan, Seoul, South Korea.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

15764254

Citation

Chang, Jai Won, et al. "Continuous Venovenous Hemodiafiltration Versus Hemodialysis as Renal Replacement Therapy in Patients With Acute Renal Failure in the Intensive Care Unit." Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology, vol. 38, no. 5, 2004, pp. 417-21.
Chang JW, Yang WS, Seo JW, et al. Continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration versus hemodialysis as renal replacement therapy in patients with acute renal failure in the intensive care unit. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2004;38(5):417-21.
Chang, J. W., Yang, W. S., Seo, J. W., Lee, J. S., Lee, S. K., & Park, S. K. (2004). Continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration versus hemodialysis as renal replacement therapy in patients with acute renal failure in the intensive care unit. Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology, 38(5), 417-21.
Chang JW, et al. Continuous Venovenous Hemodiafiltration Versus Hemodialysis as Renal Replacement Therapy in Patients With Acute Renal Failure in the Intensive Care Unit. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 2004;38(5):417-21. PubMed PMID: 15764254.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration versus hemodialysis as renal replacement therapy in patients with acute renal failure in the intensive care unit. AU - Chang,Jai Won, AU - Yang,Won Seok, AU - Seo,Jang Won, AU - Lee,Joon Seung, AU - Lee,Sang Koo, AU - Park,Su-Kil, PY - 2005/3/15/pubmed PY - 2005/4/7/medline PY - 2005/3/15/entrez SP - 417 EP - 21 JF - Scandinavian journal of urology and nephrology JO - Scand J Urol Nephrol VL - 38 IS - 5 N2 - OBJECTIVE: Hemodialysis (HD) and continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) have been adopted as forms of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in patients with acute renal failure (ARF). Although CVVHDF has many advantages, previous studies reported no definite improvement in survival rate compared to HD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 148 intensive care unit patients underwent HD (70 males, 25 females; mean age 45 +/- 17 years) or CVVHDF (42 males, 11 females; mean age 52 +/- 18 years). The severity of illness was estimated at the initiation of RRT and on the third day of RRT and presented using the APACHE III scoring system. The number of organ failures was checked at the initiation of RRT. RESULTS: The survival rate was 46% in the HD group and 21% in the CVVHDF group (p = 0.002). CVVHDF was applied to the more severely ill patients, who had longer periods using a ventilator (p = 0.002) and/or vasopressor (p < 0.001), higher numbers of organ failures (p < 0.001) and higher initial APACHE III scores (p < 0.001). Among patients with APACHE III scores > 103, the survival rate was 13% in the CVVHDF group and 0% in the HD group. In patients with kidney failure and failure of two other organs, the survival rate was 9% in the HD group and 36% in the CVVHDF group (p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: The mortality rate in the CVVHDF group was higher than that in the HD group, which may have been because CVVHDF was applied to the more severely ill patients. In contrast, CVVHDF may give a chance of survival to patients with APACHE III scores > 103 and may be more useful than HD in patients with failure of three or more organs. SN - 0036-5599 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/15764254/Continuous_venovenous_hemodiafiltration_versus_hemodialysis_as_renal_replacement_therapy_in_patients_with_acute_renal_failure_in_the_intensive_care_unit_ L2 - https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00365590410031751 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -