Intensive Care Medicine

, Volume 39, Issue 9, pp 1535–1546 | Cite as

High-volume versus standard-volume haemofiltration for septic shock patients with acute kidney injury (IVOIRE study): a multicentre randomized controlled trial

  • Olivier Joannes-BoyauEmail author
  • Patrick M. Honoré
  • Paul Perez
  • Sean M. Bagshaw
  • Hubert Grand
  • Jean-Luc Canivet
  • Antoine Dewitte
  • Claire Flamens
  • Wilfried Pujol
  • Anne-Sophie Grandoulier
  • Catherine Fleureau
  • Rita Jacobs
  • Christophe Broux
  • Hervé Floch
  • Olivier Branchard
  • Stephane Franck
  • Hadrien Rozé
  • Vincent Collin
  • Willem Boer
  • Joachim Calderon
  • Bernard Gauche
  • Herbert D. Spapen
  • Gérard Janvier
  • Alexandre Ouattara



Septic shock is a leading cause of death among critically ill patients, in particular when complicated by acute kidney injury (AKI). Small experimental and human clinical studies have suggested that high-volume haemofiltration (HVHF) may improve haemodynamic profile and mortality. We sought to determine the impact of HVHF on 28-day mortality in critically ill patients with septic shock and AKI.


This was a prospective, randomized, open, multicentre clinical trial conducted at 18 intensive care units in France, Belgium and the Netherlands. A total of 140 critically ill patients with septic shock and AKI for less than 24 h were enrolled from October 2005 through March 2010. Patients were randomized to either HVHF at 70 mL/kg/h or standard-volume haemofiltration (SVHF) at 35 mL/kg/h, for a 96-h period.


Primary endpoint was 28-day mortality. The trial was stopped prematurely after enrolment of 140 patients because of slow patient accrual and resources no longer being available. A total of 137 patients were analysed (two withdrew consent, one was excluded); 66 patients in the HVHF group and 71 in the SVHF group. Mortality at 28 days was lower than expected but not different between groups (HVHF 37.9 % vs. SVHF 40.8 %, log-rank test p = 0.94). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the secondary endpoints between treatment groups.


In the IVOIRE trial, there was no evidence that HVHF at 70 mL/kg/h, when compared with contemporary SVHF at 35 mL/kg/h, leads to a reduction of 28-day mortality or contributes to early improvements in haemodynamic profile or organ function. HVHF, as applied in this trial, cannot be recommended for treatment of septic shock complicated by AKI.


Acute kidney injury Renal replacement therapy High volume hemofiltration Blood purification Septic shock 



A special thanks to the members of the Data Safety and Monitoring Committee (J.P. Pignon, Villejuif; F. Sztark, Bordeaux; G. Boulard, Bordeaux; L. Trinquard, Paris; G. Hanique, Brussels) who helped us to steer the study and gave valuable comments on the manuscript. Thanks to the Hospital Pharmacovigilance Unit which reviews all the serious adverse events for classification. A big thanks to all the participants and in particular the nurses that worked continuously for the success of this study. The study was supported by a grant from the French Health Ministry (Hospital Clinical Research Program—PHRC).

Conflicts of interest

Dr. Bagshaw is supported by a Canada Research Chair in Critical Care Nephrology and Clinical Investigator Award from Alberta Innovates—Health Solutions. Other authors do not have any conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

134_2013_2967_MOESM1_ESM.docx (55 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 54 kb)


  1. 1.
    Angus DC, Linde-Zwirble WT, Lidicker J et al (2001) Epidemiology of severe sepsis in the United States: analysis of incidence, outcome, and associated costs of care. Crit Care Med 29:1303–1310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bagshaw SM, Uchino S, Bellomo R et al (2007) Septic acute kidney injury in critically ill patients: clinical characteristics and outcomes. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2:431–439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bernard GR, Vincent JL, Laterre PF et al (2001) Efficacy and safety of recombinant human activated protein C for severe sepsis. N Engl J Med 344:699–709PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Opal SM, Laterre P-F, Francois B et al (2013) Effect of eritoran, an antagonist of MD2-TLR4, on mortality in patients with severe sepsis: the ACCESS randomized trial. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 309:1154–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Finfer S, Chittock DR, Su SY-S et al (2009) Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 360:1283–1297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoffmann JN, Hartl WH, Deppisch R et al (1996) Effect of hemofiltration on hemodynamics and systemic concentrations of anaphylatoxins and cytokines in human sepsis. Intensive Care Med 22:1360–1367PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heering P, Morgera S, Schmitz FJ et al (1997) Cytokine removal and cardiovascular hemodynamics in septic patients with continuous venovenous hemofiltration. Intensive Care Med 23:288–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bellomo R, Tipping P, Boyce N (1993) Continuous veno-venous hemofiltration with dialysis removes cytokines from the circulation of septic patients. Crit Care Med 21:522–526PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Honore PM, Joannes-Boyau O (2004) High volume hemofiltration (HVHF) in sepsis: a comprehensive review of rationale, clinical applicability, potential indications and recommendations for future research. Int J Artif Organs 27:1077–1082PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rimmelé T, Kellum JA (2012) High-volume hemofiltration in the intensive care unit: a blood purification therapy. Anesthesiology 116:1377–1387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rogiers P, Zhang H, Smail N et al (1999) Continuous venovenous hemofiltration improves cardiac performance by mechanisms other than tumor necrosis factor-alpha attenuation during endotoxic shock. Crit Care Med 27:1848–1855PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yekebas EF, Eisenberger CF, Ohnesorge H et al (2001) Attenuation of sepsis-related immunoparalysis by continuous veno-venous hemofiltration in experimental porcine pancreatitis. Crit Care Med 29:1423–1430PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang H, Zhang ZH, Yan XW et al (2005) Amelioration of hemodynamics and oxygen metabolism by continuous venovenous hemofiltration in experimental porcine pancreatitis. World J Gastroenterol 11:127–131PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rimmelé T, Assadi A, Cattenoz M et al (2009) High-volume haemofiltration with a new haemofiltration membrane having enhanced adsorption properties in septic pigs. Nephrol Dial Transplant 24:421–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bellomo R, Kellum JA, Gandhi CR et al (2000) The effect of intensive plasma water exchange by hemofiltration on hemodynamics and soluble mediators in canine endotoxemia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 161:1429–1436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Honore PM, Jamez J, Wauthier M et al (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
  17. 17.
    Joannes-Boyau O, Rapaport S, Bazin R et al (2004) Impact of high volume hemofiltration on hemodynamic disturbance and outcome during septic shock. ASAIO J 50:102–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cornejo R, Downey P, Castro R et al (2006) High-volume hemofiltration as salvage therapy in severe hyperdynamic septic shock. Intensive Care Med 32:713–722PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cole L, Bellomo R, Hart G et al (2002) A phase II randomized, controlled trial of continuous hemofiltration in sepsis. Crit Care Med 30:100–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cole L, Bellomo R, Journois D et al (2001) High-volume haemofiltration in human septic shock. Intensive Care Med 27:978–986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ratanarat R, Brendolan A, Piccinni P et al (2005) Pulse high-volume haemofiltration for treatment of severe sepsis: effects on hemodynamics and survival. Crit Care 9:R294–R302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boussekey N, Chiche A, Faure K et al (2008) A pilot randomized study comparing high and low volume hemofiltration on vasopressor use in septic shock. Intensive Care Med 34:1646–1653PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Uchino S, Bellomo R, Morimatsu H et al (2007) Continuous renal replacement therapy: a worldwide practice survey. The beginning and ending supportive therapy for the kidney (B.E.S.T. kidney) investigators. Intensive Care Med 33:1563–1570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vesconi S, Cruz DN, Fumagalli R et al (2009) Delivered dose of renal replacement therapy and mortality in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. Crit Care 13:R57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee K, Lee SR, Mun CH, Min BG (2008) Pulse push/pull hemodialysis: in vitro study on new dialysis modality with higher convective efficiency. Artif Organs 32:406–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Churchwell MD, Pasko DA, Btaiche IF et al (2007) Trace element removal during in vitro and in vivo continuous haemodialysis. Nephrol Dial Transplant 22:2970–2977PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bouman CS, van Kan HJ, Koopmans RP et al (2006) Discrepancies between observed and predicted continuous venovenous hemofiltration removal of antimicrobial agents in critically ill patients and the effects on dosing. Intensive Care Med 32:2013–2019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Klouche K, Cavadore P, Portales P et al (2002) Continuous veno-venous hemofiltration improves hemodynamics in septic shock with acute renal failure without modifying TNFalpha and IL6 plasma concentrations. J Nephrol 15:150–157PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kellum JA, Venkataraman R (2002) Blood purification in sepsis: an idea whose time has come? Crit Care Med 30:1387–1388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Joannes-Boyau O, Honore PM, Boer W (2006) Hemofiltration: the case for removal of sepsis mediators from where they do harm. Crit Care Med 34:2244–2246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Levy MM, Fink MP, Marshall JC et al (2003) 2001 SCCM/ESICM/ACCP/ATS/SIS International Sepsis Definitions Conference. Crit Care Med 31:1250–1256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bellomo R, Ronco C, Kellum JA et al (2004) Acute renal failure—definition, outcome measures, animal models, fluid therapy and information technology needs: the Second International Consensus Conference of the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Group. Crit Care 8:R204–R212PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pottecher T, Calvat S, Dupont H et al (2006) Haemodynamic management of severe sepsis: recommendations of the French Intensive Care Societies (SFAR/SRLF) Consensus Conference, 13 October 2005, Paris, France. Crit Care 10:311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J et al (1996) The SOFA (Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related Problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med 22:707–710PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F (1993) A new Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA 270:2957–2963PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Shore S, Nelson DP, Pearl JM et al (2001) Usefulness of corticosteroid therapy in decreasing epinephrine requirements in critically ill infants with congenital heart disease. Am J Cardiol 88:591–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wernovsky G, Wypij D, Jonas RA et al (1995) Postoperative course and hemodynamic profile after the arterial switch operation in neonates and infants. A comparison of low-flow cardiopulmonary bypass and circulatory arrest. Circulation 92:2226–2235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zuppa AF, Nadkarni V, Davis L et al (2004) The effect of a thyroid hormone infusion on vasopressor support in critically ill children with cessation of neurologic function. Crit Care Med 32:2318–2322PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tsujimoto H, Ono S, Hiraki S et al (2004) Hemoperfusion with polymyxin B-immobilized fibers reduced the number of CD16+ CD14+ monocytes in patients with septic shock. J Endotoxin Res 10:229–237PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cruz DN, Antonelli M, Fumagalli R et al (2009) Early use of polymyxin B hemoperfusion in abdominal septic shock: the EUPHAS randomized controlled trial. JAMA 301:2445–2452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Parrillo JE (1993) Pathogenetic mechanisms of septic shock. N Engl J Med 328:1471–1477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Metnitz PG, Krenn CG, Steltzer H et al (2002) Effect of acute renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy on outcome in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 30:2051–2058PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schrier RW, Wang W (2004) Acute renal failure and sepsis. N Engl J Med 351:159–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pocock S (1996) Clinical trials: a practical approach. Wiley, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hernandez AV, Eijkemans MJ, Steyerberg EW (2006) Randomized controlled trials with time-to-event outcomes: how much does prespecified covariate adjustment increase power? Ann Epidemiol 16:41–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhang P, Yang Y, Lv R et al (2012) Effect of the intensity of continuous renal replacement therapy in patients with sepsis and acute kidney injury: a single-center randomized clinical trial. Nephrol Dial Transpl 27:967–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ronco C, Bellomo R, Homel P et al (2000) Effects of different doses in continuous veno-venous haemofiltration on outcomes of acute renal failure: a prospective randomised trial. Lancet 356:26–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bellomo R, Cass A, Cole L et al (2009) Intensity of continuous renal-replacement therapy in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med 361:1627–1638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Palevsky PM, Zhang JH, O’Connor TZ et al (2008) Intensity of renal support in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury. N Engl J Med 359:7–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bellomo R, Lipcsey M, Calzavacca P et al (2013) Early acid-base and blood pressure effects of continuous renal replacement therapy intensity in patients with metabolic acidosis. Intensive Care Med 39:429–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Demirjian S, Teo BW, Guzman JA et al (2011) Hypophosphatemia during continuous hemodialysis is associated with prolonged respiratory failure in patients with acute kidney injury. Nephrol Dial Transpl 26:3508–3514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Roberts DM, Roberts JA, Roberts MS et al (2012) Variability of antibiotic concentrations in critically ill patients receiving continuous renal replacement therapy: a multicentre pharmacokinetic study. Crit Care Med 40:1523–1528PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Payen D, Mateo J, Cavaillon JM et al (2009) Impact of continuous venovenous hemofiltration on organ failure during the early phase of severe sepsis: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med 37:803–810PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and ESICM 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olivier Joannes-Boyau
    • 1
    • 15
    Email author
  • Patrick M. Honoré
    • 2
  • Paul Perez
    • 3
  • Sean M. Bagshaw
    • 4
  • Hubert Grand
    • 5
  • Jean-Luc Canivet
    • 6
  • Antoine Dewitte
    • 1
  • Claire Flamens
    • 7
  • Wilfried Pujol
    • 8
  • Anne-Sophie Grandoulier
    • 3
  • Catherine Fleureau
    • 1
  • Rita Jacobs
    • 2
  • Christophe Broux
    • 9
  • Hervé Floch
    • 10
  • Olivier Branchard
    • 1
  • Stephane Franck
    • 11
  • Hadrien Rozé
    • 1
  • Vincent Collin
    • 12
  • Willem Boer
    • 13
  • Joachim Calderon
    • 1
  • Bernard Gauche
    • 5
  • Herbert D. Spapen
    • 2
  • Gérard Janvier
    • 1
    • 14
  • Alexandre Ouattara
    • 1
    • 14
  1. 1.Service d’Anesthésie-Réanimation 2Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  2. 2.Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universitieit Brussel (VUB)BrusselsBelgium
  3. 3.Unité de Soutien Méthodologique à la Recherche Clinique et Épidémiologique (USMR), Pôle de Santé Publique et CIC-EC7Centre Hospitalier Universitaire (CHU) de BordeauxBordeauxFrance
  4. 4.Division of Critical Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and DentistryUniversity of AlbertaEdmontonCanada
  5. 5.Réanimation PolyvalentePôle EPURS, Hopital R. BOULINLibourneFrance
  6. 6.Department of General Intensive CareUniversity Hospital of Liege, Domaine Universitaire de LiègeLiegeBelgium
  7. 7.Service d’Anesthésie et RéanimationHôpital Cardiovasculaire et Pneumologique Louis PradelLyonFrance
  8. 8.Service de RéanimationClinique Bordeaux Nord AquitaineBordeauxFrance
  9. 9.Department of Anesthesiology and Critical CareAlbert Michallon HospitalGrenobleFrance
  10. 10.Réanimation ChirurgicaleHôpital de Cavale Blanche, CHU de BrestBrestFrance
  11. 11.Department of Critical CareHôpital Tivoli, Université Libre de BruxellesLa LouvièreBelgium
  12. 12.Cliniques de l’Europe-Site St MichelBrusselsBelgium
  13. 13.Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care MedicineZiekenhuis Oost-LimburgGenkBelgium
  14. 14.Univ. Bordeaux, Adaptation Cardiovasculaire à l’ischémiePessacFrance
  15. 15.Haut-Lévèque HospitalPessacFrance

Personalised recommendations