Biocompatible membranes do not promote graft recovery following cadaveric renal transplantation. A multicenter comparison of dialysis membranes in the treatment of acute renal failure requiring dialysis. A randomized controlled trial comparing intermittent with continuous dialysis in patients with ARF. A randomized clinical trial of continuous versus intermittent dialysis for acute renal failure. A randomized cross-over comparison of the hemodynamic response to intermittent hemodialysis and continuous hemofiltration in ICU patients with acute renal failure. Effect of the membrane biocompatibility on nutritional parameters in chronic hemodialysis patients. Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) or intermittent hemodialysis (IHD)--what is the procedure of choice in critically ill patients? Comparison of continuous and intermittent renal replacement therapy for acute renal failure. Hemodynamic response to fluid withdrawal in overhydrated patients treated with intermittent ultrafiltration and slow continuous ultrafiltration: role of blood volume monitoring.
Controversy surrounds the role of biocompatible membrane dialyzers in treatment of acute renal failure. Studies that have shown a benefit have involved critically ill patients where renal recovery and patient mortality are influenced by other comorbid disease. The aim of the present work is to clarify this issue in a more homogeneous population of patients with acute renal failure following cadaveric renal transplantation.
                All patients with delayed graft function between January 1996 and February 1998 were randomized to receive either a biocompatible (BCM, polysulfone) membrane or bioincompatible (BICM, cuprophane) membrane for dialysis until onset of graft function.
                Forty-one patients were randomized, 23 to receive BCM and 18 BICM. Five patients (2 BCM, 3 BICM; p = NS) with primary non-function of graft were excluded from analysis, leaving 36 cases of acute tubular necrosis (ATN). Patient and donor characteristics were similar in both groups. The BCM group had significantly longer periods of dialysis dependency compared to the BICM group (14 vs 10 days; p = 0.03). There was a tendency towards higher serum creatinine levels in the short term in the BCM group (318 vs 164 micromol/l at 1 month (p = 0.1), 190 vs 169 micromol/l at latest visit (p = 0.07)) and a greater number of acute rejection episodes in the BCM group (3.7 vs 1.7 episodes per 100 days of dialysis dependency, p = 0.1). With an intention-to-treat analysis of all 41 patients originally randomized, there was no significant difference in time to graft recovery between the 2 groups (p = 0.18).
                In the setting of ARF posttransplantation, we have found no evidence to support the use of biocompatible membranes for dialysis. Rather, our study provides argument against a large benefit for the use of BCM in the recovery of ARF, as suggested by earlier studies. The mortality of patients with acute renal failure (ARF) remains high, and in several large studies approaches 60%. This mortality is particularly high in patients with ARF who require dialysis and has not changed substantially over several years, despite the introduction of major advances in monitoring and treatment. Increasing prevalence of comorbidities has been suggested as the major factor in this persistently high mortality. This study investigates the potential role of the dialysis membrane on patient outcome in a prospective multicenter study of 153 patients with ARF requiring dialysis. The membrane assignment was made in alternating order and was limited to membranes with low complement activation (Biocompatible [BCM]) and cellulosic, high complement activation (Bioincompatible [BICM]). Both types of membranes were low-flux membranes. Patients were dialyzed with the assigned membrane until recovery, discharge from hospital, or death. The severity of illness of each patient was assessed using the APACHE II score at the time of initiation of dialysis. A logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for the APACHE II score. The results of the study showed a statistically significant difference in survival (57% in patients on BCM, 46% in patients on BICM; P = 0.03) and in recovery of renal function (64% in patients on BICM and 43% in patients on BICM; P = 0.001). These differences were particularly marked in the patients who were nonoliguric (>400 ml/d of urine output) at initiation of the study. In the subset of patients who were nonoliguric at the start of dialysis, a larger fraction (70%) became oliguric after initiating dialysis on a BICM membrane, in contrast to 44% who were initiated on a BCM membrane (P = 0.03). It is concluded that the biocompatibility of the dialysis membrane plays a role in the outcome of patients with ARF, particularly those who are nonoliguric at the time of initiation of dialysis. Despite the widespread use of continuous renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients with acute renal failure (ARF), there are few data supporting its benefits over conventional intermittent hemodialysis (IHD). We sought to analyze differences in survival between modalities in a study that compared continuous venovenous hemodialysis (CVVHD) with IHD.
                Eighty critically ill patients with ARF requiring dialysis were randomized after stratification by severity of illness to treatment with CVVHD or IHD.
                There were no differences in survival or renal recovery between groups. In patients who died, mean survival time was 10.7 +/- 11.2 days for the IHD group versus 14.3 +/- 16.1 days for the CVVHD group (P = not significant). There was greater net volume removal in the CVVHD group during 72 hours. Declines in urine output during 72 hours were similar between groups. Mean arterial pressure off and on dialysis therapy was analyzed retrospectively. There was a significant decrease in mean arterial pressure for patients on IHD therapy not seen in those on CVVHD therapy, but this did not lead to a survival advantage.
                Despite greater volume control, CVVHD did not lead to an improvement in survival, preservation of urine output, or renal recovery compared with IHD in patients with ARF. Acute renal failure (ARF) requiring dialysis in critically ill patients is associated with an in-hospital mortality rate of 50 to 80%. The worldwide standard for renal replacement therapy is intermittent hemodialysis (IHD). Continuous hemodialysis and hemofiltration techniques have recently emerged as alternative modalities. These two therapies have not been directly compared.
                A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial was conducted comparing two dialysis modalities (IHD vs. continuous hemodiafiltration) for the treatment of ARF in the intensive care unit (ICU). One hundred sixty-six patients were randomized. Principal outcome measures were ICU and hospital mortality, length of stay, and recovery of renal function.
                Using intention-to-treat analysis, the overall ICU and in-hospital mortalities were 50.6 and 56.6%, respectively. Continuous therapy was associated with an increase in ICU (59.5 vs. 41.5%, P < 0.02) and in-hospital (65.5 vs. 47.6%, P < 0.02) mortality relative to intermittent dialysis. Median ICU length of stay from the time of nephrology consultation was 16.5 days, and complete recovery of renal function was observed in 34.9% of patients, with no significant group differences. Despite randomization, there were significant differences between the groups in several covariates independently associated with mortality, including gender, hepatic failure, APACHE II and III scores, and the number of failed organ systems, in each instance biased in favor of the intermittent dialysis group. Using logistic regression to adjust for the imbalances in group assignment, the odds of death associated with continuous therapy was 1.3 (95% CI, 0.6 to 2.7, P = NS). A detailed investigation of the randomization process failed to explain the marked differences in patient assignment.
                A randomized controlled trial of alternative dialysis modalities in ARF is feasible. Despite the potential advantages of continuous techniques, this study provides no evidence of a survival benefit of continuous hemodiafiltration compared with IHD. This study did not control for other major clinical decisions or other supportive management strategies that are widely variable (for example, nutrition support, hemodynamic support, timing of initiation, and dose of dialysis) and might materially influence outcomes in ARF. Standardization of several aspects of care or extremely large sample sizes will be required to answer optimally the questions originally posed by this investigation. To compare the hemodynamic response of ICU patients with acute renal failure of a 24-h continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration (CAVH) and that of patients with a 4-h intermittent hemodialysis (HD).
                Cross-over randomized clinical trial. The two periods to be compared were a 24-h CAVH and the 24-h encompassing a 4-h HD. These two periods were separated by a 24-h wash-out period.
                Ten bed medicosurgical ICU of a tertiary care center in Paris, France.
                Inclusion criterion was the requirement of replacement therapy for acute renal failure in patients already submitted to mechanical ventilation.
                CAVH was performed with Ringers' lactate used for restitution and infused before the hemofilter. The ultrafiltrate output was maintained at around 15 ml/min. HD was performed with a bicarbonate-buffered dialysate.
                Mean arterial pressure (MAP), use of adrenergic drugs, and change in body weight during each period.
                Twenty-seven consecutive patients were included, 15 CAVH-HD and 12HD-CAVH. CAVH and HD allowed the same metabolic efficacy. No hemodynamic parameter (MAP, amount of adrenergic drugs, change in body weight) differed between the two methods.
                CAVH is equivalent to HD in terms of MAP and the use of vasopressive drugs and fluids. Establishing the superiority of CAVH would require carefully controlled studies assessing either outcome or changes in tissue oxygenation. Malnutrition is highly prevalent in chronic hemodialysis patients and is an important determinant of their morbidity and mortality. Several recent studies have suggested that the inflammatory response associated with the biocompatibility of the dialysis membranes is a potential contributing factor. In a prospective study of 159 new hemodialysis patients from two centers randomized to either a low-flux biocompatible (BCM) membrane or a low-flux bioincompatible (BICM) membrane, we measured the long-term effects of biocompatibility on several nutritional parameters, including estimated dry weight, serum albumin, insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), and prealbumin over 18 months. Our results show that the BCM group had a mean (+/- SD) increase in their dry weight of 2.96 +/- 6.88 kg at month 12 and 4.36 +/- 8.57 kg at month 18 (P < 0.05 vs. baseline for both), whereas no change in mean weight was observed in BICM group. Following initiation of hemodialysis, a significant increase was observed in serum albumin levels in both groups of patients. However, the biocompatible group had an earlier and more marked increase in serum albumin levels compared to the BICM group. The average increase in serum albumin compared to baseline was consistently greater than 0.25 g/dl after seven months in the BCM group, but did not reach this level until 12 months after initiation of dialysis in the BICM group. The difference between the groups was statistically significant at months 7, 8, and 10 (P < 0.05, higher in the BCM group). Furthermore, the overall difference in serum albumin concentration between the two groups was larger in the center where the dose of dialysis was equivalent (P < 0.001). A consistently higher value was also observed in IGF-1 levels for BCM patients compared to BICM group (P = NS). In a further analysis, changes in IGF-1 levels, but not prealbumin, predicted the subsequent changes in serum albumin. We conclude that biocompatible hemodialysis membranes favorably impact on the nutritional status of chronic hemodialysis patients, independently of the flux characteristics of the membranes, and that IGF-1 may be an early marker of nutritional status. Although at present there is no prospective randomized study which could show significantly better survival of patients on continuous procedures, the majority of intensivists advocate this technique of renal function replacement due to generally accepted opinion that it has less effect on circulation of already hemodynamically unstable patients. In our prospective randomized study with 104 patients, we also did not observe any difference in 28 days survival, in total survival, as well as in circulatory instability between two treatment modalities. Even in subgroup of 80 patients with sepsis and septic shock there were no difference in survival. Sepsis was the underlying disorder in 52 and septic shock in 28 patients out of 104 patients analyzed in this study. Our prospective randomized study did not show a statistically significant difference between the two methods of renal replacement therapy. Survival rates were not affected and neither was the occurrence of hemodynamic instability. We believe that both methods are complementary; IHD for faster elimination of electrolytes and waste products elimination, CRRT for regulation of higher calories requirements and for hemodynamically unstable patients. The expectations that one method is superior to the other in the term of better survival have not been corroborated by the current data available in the literature. The choice of the method should be individualized. ARF, which is an integral part of MOF, is a problem frequently encountered in critically ill patient treated in the ICU, but outcome of these patients depends closely on the control of basic event. Evaluation of each of the supportive procedures is therefore hindered by the fact that the underlying disease has the crucial effect on survival and the type of supportive procedure less so. Mortality rates of critically ill patients with acute renal failure (ARF) requiring renal replacement therapy (RRT) are high. Intermittent and continuous RRT are available for these patients on the intensive care units (ICUs). It is unknown which technique is superior with respect to patient outcome.
                We randomized 125 patients to treatment with either continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) or intermittent haemodialysis (IHD) from a total of 191 patients with ARF in a tertiary-care university hospital ICU. The primary end-point was ICU and in-hospital mortality, while recovery of renal function and hospital length of stay were secondary end-points.
                During 30 months, no patient escaped randomization for medical reasons. Sixty-six patients were not randomized for non-medical reasons. Of the 125 randomized patients, 70 were treated with CVVHDF and 55 with IHD. The two groups were comparable at the start of RRT with respect to age (62+/-15 vs 62+/-15 years, CVVHDF vs IHD), gender (66 vs 73% male sex), number of failed organ systems (2.4+/-1.5 vs 2.5+/-1.6), Simplified Acute Physiology Scores (57+/-17 vs 58+/-23), septicaemia (43 vs 51%), shock (59 vs 58%) or previous surgery (53 vs 45%). Mortality rates in the hospital (47 vs 51%, CVVHDF vs IHD, P = 0.72) or in the ICU (34 vs 38%, P = 0.71) were independent of the technique of RRT applied. Hospital length of stay in the survivors was comparable in patients on CVVHDF [median (range) 20 (6-71) days, n = 36] and in those on IHD [30 (2-89) days, n = 27, P = 0.25]. The duration of RRT required was the same in both groups.
                The present investigation provides no evidence for a survival benefit of continuous vs intermittent RRT in ICU patients with ARF. Fluid overload may occur in patients with congestive heart failure, especially when there is associated acute renal failure. When the pharmacological approach is not sufficient to maintain the patient's fluid balance, extracorporeal therapies must be instituted. However, since the ultrafiltration rate may be faster than fluid refilling from the interstitial space, remarkable changes in the circulating blood volume may occur. This may finally result in further worsening of peripheral perfusion due to a significant drop in cardiac output. In order to prevent a fall in the circulating blood volume, slow continuous ultrafiltration (SCUF) should be employed instead of acute intermittent ultrafiltration (UF). To further improve the tolerance to extracorporeal ultrafiltration, the session can be driven by the relative blood volume change monitored on-line with adequate sensors and devices. We utilized one of these systems (Crit-Line, Hemametrics, USA) to compare the relative changes in blood volume during UF and SCUF in 22 patients with fluid overload. Variations in blood pressure were significantly greater with UF than with SCUF even in the presence of similar levels of fluid removal. The variations in blood pressure were paralleled by variations in blood volume, which were greater with UF than with SCUF. In conclusion, extracorporeal ultrafiltration can be used to control the fluid balance in congestive heart failure, but it is advisable to prescribe low ultrafiltration rates over an extended period of time. The use of on-line blood volume monitors can be of further help in improving tolerance and the hemodynamic response.
                Copyright 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel
There is no demonstrable clinical advantage to the use of BCM versus BICM in patients with ARF who require intermittent hemodialysis.