Continuous renal replacement therapy: Does technique influence azotemic control?

Hiroshi Morimatsu, Shigehiko Uchino, Rinaldo Bellomo, Claudio Ronco

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Different techniques of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) might have different effects on azotemic control. Accordingly, we tested whether continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) or continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) would achieve better control of serum creatinine and plasma urea levels. Design: Retrospective controlled study. Setting: Two tertiary Intensive Care Units. Patients: Critically ill patients with acute renal failure (ARF) treated with CVVHDF (n=49) or CVVH (n=50). Interventions: Retrieval of daily morning urea and creatinine values before and after the initiation of CRRT for up to 2 weeks of treatment. Measurements and Results: Before treatment, serum urea and creatinine concentrations were significantly lower in the CVVH group than in CVVHDF group (urea: 31.0 ± 15.0 mmol/L for CVVHDF and 24.7 ± 16.1 mmol/L for CVVH, p = 0.01, creatinine: 547 ± 308 μmol/L vs. 326 ± 250 μmol/L, p <0.0001). These differences were still significant after 48 h of treatment (urea: 20.1 ± 8.3 mmol/L vs. 14.1 ± 6.1 mmol/L; p = 0.0003, creatinine: 360 ± 189 μmol/L vs. 215 ± 118 μmol/L; p <0.0001). Throughout the duration of therapy, mean urea levels (22.3 ± 9.0 mmol/L for CVVHDF vs. 16.7 ± 7.8 mmol/L for CVVH, p <0.0001) and mean creatinine levels (302 ± 167 vs. 211 ± 103 μmol/L, p <0.0001) were better controlled in the CVVH group. Conclusions: CRRT strategies based on different techniques might have a significantly different impact on azotemic control.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)645-653
Number of pages9
JournalRenal Failure
Volume24
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Hemofiltration
Renal Replacement Therapy
Hemodiafiltration
Urea
Creatinine
Tertiary Healthcare
Therapeutics
Serum
Acute Kidney Injury
Critical Illness
Intensive Care Units
Retrospective Studies

Keywords

  • Acute renal failure
  • Creatinine
  • Critical illness
  • Hemodialysis
  • Hemofiltration
  • Urea
  • Uremia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nephrology

Cite this

Continuous renal replacement therapy : Does technique influence azotemic control? / Morimatsu, Hiroshi; Uchino, Shigehiko; Bellomo, Rinaldo; Ronco, Claudio.

In: Renal Failure, Vol. 24, No. 5, 2002, p. 645-653.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Morimatsu, Hiroshi ; Uchino, Shigehiko ; Bellomo, Rinaldo ; Ronco, Claudio. / Continuous renal replacement therapy : Does technique influence azotemic control?. In: Renal Failure. 2002 ; Vol. 24, No. 5. pp. 645-653.
@article{24a2fb1167774fa2852e91657ce95238,
title = "Continuous renal replacement therapy: Does technique influence azotemic control?",
abstract = "Background and Objectives: Different techniques of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) might have different effects on azotemic control. Accordingly, we tested whether continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) or continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) would achieve better control of serum creatinine and plasma urea levels. Design: Retrospective controlled study. Setting: Two tertiary Intensive Care Units. Patients: Critically ill patients with acute renal failure (ARF) treated with CVVHDF (n=49) or CVVH (n=50). Interventions: Retrieval of daily morning urea and creatinine values before and after the initiation of CRRT for up to 2 weeks of treatment. Measurements and Results: Before treatment, serum urea and creatinine concentrations were significantly lower in the CVVH group than in CVVHDF group (urea: 31.0 ± 15.0 mmol/L for CVVHDF and 24.7 ± 16.1 mmol/L for CVVH, p = 0.01, creatinine: 547 ± 308 μmol/L vs. 326 ± 250 μmol/L, p <0.0001). These differences were still significant after 48 h of treatment (urea: 20.1 ± 8.3 mmol/L vs. 14.1 ± 6.1 mmol/L; p = 0.0003, creatinine: 360 ± 189 μmol/L vs. 215 ± 118 μmol/L; p <0.0001). Throughout the duration of therapy, mean urea levels (22.3 ± 9.0 mmol/L for CVVHDF vs. 16.7 ± 7.8 mmol/L for CVVH, p <0.0001) and mean creatinine levels (302 ± 167 vs. 211 ± 103 μmol/L, p <0.0001) were better controlled in the CVVH group. Conclusions: CRRT strategies based on different techniques might have a significantly different impact on azotemic control.",
keywords = "Acute renal failure, Creatinine, Critical illness, Hemodialysis, Hemofiltration, Urea, Uremia",
author = "Hiroshi Morimatsu and Shigehiko Uchino and Rinaldo Bellomo and Claudio Ronco",
year = "2002",
doi = "10.1081/JDI-120013969",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "645--653",
journal = "Renal Failure",
issn = "0886-022X",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Continuous renal replacement therapy

T2 - Does technique influence azotemic control?

AU - Morimatsu, Hiroshi

AU - Uchino, Shigehiko

AU - Bellomo, Rinaldo

AU - Ronco, Claudio

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - Background and Objectives: Different techniques of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) might have different effects on azotemic control. Accordingly, we tested whether continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) or continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) would achieve better control of serum creatinine and plasma urea levels. Design: Retrospective controlled study. Setting: Two tertiary Intensive Care Units. Patients: Critically ill patients with acute renal failure (ARF) treated with CVVHDF (n=49) or CVVH (n=50). Interventions: Retrieval of daily morning urea and creatinine values before and after the initiation of CRRT for up to 2 weeks of treatment. Measurements and Results: Before treatment, serum urea and creatinine concentrations were significantly lower in the CVVH group than in CVVHDF group (urea: 31.0 ± 15.0 mmol/L for CVVHDF and 24.7 ± 16.1 mmol/L for CVVH, p = 0.01, creatinine: 547 ± 308 μmol/L vs. 326 ± 250 μmol/L, p <0.0001). These differences were still significant after 48 h of treatment (urea: 20.1 ± 8.3 mmol/L vs. 14.1 ± 6.1 mmol/L; p = 0.0003, creatinine: 360 ± 189 μmol/L vs. 215 ± 118 μmol/L; p <0.0001). Throughout the duration of therapy, mean urea levels (22.3 ± 9.0 mmol/L for CVVHDF vs. 16.7 ± 7.8 mmol/L for CVVH, p <0.0001) and mean creatinine levels (302 ± 167 vs. 211 ± 103 μmol/L, p <0.0001) were better controlled in the CVVH group. Conclusions: CRRT strategies based on different techniques might have a significantly different impact on azotemic control.

AB - Background and Objectives: Different techniques of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) might have different effects on azotemic control. Accordingly, we tested whether continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) or continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) would achieve better control of serum creatinine and plasma urea levels. Design: Retrospective controlled study. Setting: Two tertiary Intensive Care Units. Patients: Critically ill patients with acute renal failure (ARF) treated with CVVHDF (n=49) or CVVH (n=50). Interventions: Retrieval of daily morning urea and creatinine values before and after the initiation of CRRT for up to 2 weeks of treatment. Measurements and Results: Before treatment, serum urea and creatinine concentrations were significantly lower in the CVVH group than in CVVHDF group (urea: 31.0 ± 15.0 mmol/L for CVVHDF and 24.7 ± 16.1 mmol/L for CVVH, p = 0.01, creatinine: 547 ± 308 μmol/L vs. 326 ± 250 μmol/L, p <0.0001). These differences were still significant after 48 h of treatment (urea: 20.1 ± 8.3 mmol/L vs. 14.1 ± 6.1 mmol/L; p = 0.0003, creatinine: 360 ± 189 μmol/L vs. 215 ± 118 μmol/L; p <0.0001). Throughout the duration of therapy, mean urea levels (22.3 ± 9.0 mmol/L for CVVHDF vs. 16.7 ± 7.8 mmol/L for CVVH, p <0.0001) and mean creatinine levels (302 ± 167 vs. 211 ± 103 μmol/L, p <0.0001) were better controlled in the CVVH group. Conclusions: CRRT strategies based on different techniques might have a significantly different impact on azotemic control.

KW - Acute renal failure

KW - Creatinine

KW - Critical illness

KW - Hemodialysis

KW - Hemofiltration

KW - Urea

KW - Uremia

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036382682&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036382682&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1081/JDI-120013969

DO - 10.1081/JDI-120013969

M3 - Article

C2 - 12380911

AN - SCOPUS:0036382682

VL - 24

SP - 645

EP - 653

JO - Renal Failure

JF - Renal Failure

SN - 0886-022X

IS - 5

ER -