A pilot randomized study comparing high and low volume hemofiltration on vasopressor use in septic shock
- 618 Downloads
High volume hemofiltration (HVHF) has shown potential benefits in septic animals and a few reports suggested a hemodynamic improvement in humans. However, randomized studies are still lacking. Our goal was to evaluate the hemodynamic effects of HVHF in septic shock patients with acute renal failure (ARF).
Design and setting
Prospective randomized study in an intensive care unit (ICU).
Twenty patients with septic shock and ARF.
Patients were randomized to either high volume hemofiltration [HVHF 65 ml/(kg h)] or low volume hemofiltration [LVHF 35 ml/(kg h). Vasopressor dose was adjusted to reach a mean arterial pressure (MAP) > 65 mmHg.
Measurements and results
We performed six hourly measurements of MAP, norepinephrine dose, PaO2/FiO2 and lactate, and four daily urine output and logistic organ dysfunction (LOD) score. Baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable on randomization. Mean norepinephrine dose decreased more rapidly after 24 h of HVHF treatment compared to LVHF treatment (P = 0.004) whereas lactate and PaO2/FiO2 did not differ between the two treatment groups. During the 4-day follow-up, urine output was slightly increased in the HVHF group (P = 0.059) but the LOD score evolution was not different. Duration of mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy and ICU length of stay were also comparable. Survival on day 28 was not affected.
HVHF decreased vasopressor requirement and tended to increase urine output in septic shock patients with renal failure. However, a larger trial is required to confirm our results and perhaps to show a benefit in survival.
KeywordsHigh volume hemofiltration Septic shock Acute renal failure Vasopressor Randomized study
Tourcoing hospital provided the financial support for this study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in the subject discussed in the manuscript.
- 6.Honore PM, Jamez J, Wauthier M, Lee PA, Dugernier T, Pirenne B, Hanique G, Matson JR (2000) Prospective evaluation of short-term, high-volume isovolemic hemofiltration on the hemodynamic course and outcome in patients with intractable circulatory failure resulting from septic shock. Crit Care Med 28:3581–3587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Bellomo R, Ronco C (1998) Indications and criteria for initiating renal replacement therapy in the intensive care unit. Kidney Int 66:S106–S109Google Scholar
- 15.Michard F, Boussat S, Chemla D, Anguel N, Mercat A, Lecarpentier Y, Richard C, Pinsky MR, Teboul JL (2000) Relation between respiratory changes in arterial pulse pressure and fluid responsiveness in septic patients with acute circulatory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 162:134–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Dellinger RP, Levy MM, Carlet JM, Bion J, Parker MM, Jaeschke R, Reinhart K, Angus DC, Brun-Buisson C, Beale R, Calandra T, Dhainaut JF, Gerlach H, Harvey M, Marini JJ, Marshall J, Ranieri M, Ramsay G, Sevransky J, Thompson BT, Townsend S, Vender JS, Zimmerman JL, Vincent JL (2008) Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock. Intensive Care Med 34:17–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Bellomo R, Ronco C, Kellum JA, Mehta RL, Palevsky P, the ADQI workgroup (2004) Acute renal failure––definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information needs: the Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group. Crit Care 8:R204–R212Google Scholar