Continuous renal replacement therapy is associated with less chronic renal failure than intermittent haemodialysis after acute renal failure
Acute renal failure can be treated with continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) or intermittent haemodialysis (IHD). Whether this choice affects renal recovery has been debated, since it has implications on quality of life and costs. Our objective was to determine the impact of CRRT and IHD on renal recovery.
Nationwide retrospective cohort study between the years 1995 and 2004. Follow-up ranged between 3 months and 10 years.
Thirty-two Swedish intensive care units.
Patients and participants
Eligible subjects were adults treated in Swedish general intensive care units with RRT. A total of 2,642 patients from 32 ICUs were included. We then excluded patients with end-stage renal disease (252) and patients lacking a diagnosis in the in-patient register (188). Thus, 2,202 patients were studied. Follow-up was complete.
Measurements and results
The primary outcome was renal recovery. Secondarily we studied the mortality of the cohort. There were no differences between IHD and CRRT patients regarding baseline characteristics, such as age, sex and comorbidities. Of the 1,102 patients surviving 90 days after inclusion in the cohort, 944 (85.7%) were treated with CRRT and 158 (14.3%) were treated with IHD. Seventy-eight patients (8.3%; confidence interval, CI, 6.6–10.2), never recovered their renal function in the CRRT group. The proportion was significantly higher among IHD patients, where 26 subjects or 16.5% (CI 11.0–23.2) developed need for chronic dialysis.
The use of CRRT is associated with better renal recovery than IHD, but mortality does not differ between the groups.
KeywordsKidney failure, acute Kidney failure, chronic Hemodialysis Intensive care Outcome studies
- 7.Cosentino F, Chaff C, Piedmonte M (1994) Risk factors influencing survival in ICU acute renal failure. Nephrol Dial Transplant 9 Suppl 4:179–182Google Scholar
- 17.Lunde AS, Lundeborg S, Lettenstrom GS, Thygesen L, Huebner J (1980) The person-number systems of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Israel. Vital Health Stat 2 2:1–59Google Scholar
- 19.Anderson WN (2000) Algorithms for actuarial and actual analysis. Proceedings of 8th Annual Western Users of SAS Software (WUSS):128–133Google Scholar
- 20.SAS/STAT® version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
- 21.Vinsonneau C, Camus C, Combes A, Costa de Beauregard MA, Klouche K, Boulain T, Pallot JL, Chiche JD, Taupin P, Landais P, Dhainaut JF (2006) Continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration versus intermittent haemodialysis for acute renal failure in patients with multiple-organ dysfunction syndrome: a multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 368:379–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 39.Hamel MB, Phillips RS, Davis RB, Desbiens N, Connors AF Jr., Teno JM, Wenger N, Lynn J, Wu AW, Fulkerson W, Tsevat J (1997) Outcomes and cost-effectiveness of initiating dialysis and continuing aggressive care in seriously ill hospitalized adults. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments. Ann Intern Med 127:195–202PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.SRAU (2005) Renal replacement therapy in Sweden 1991–2004 [in Swedish]. Svenskt Register för Aktiv UremivårdGoogle Scholar