Marshall M R, Golper T A, Shaver M J, Alam M G, Chatoth D K
Division of Nephrology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, Arkansas 72205, USA.
Kidney Int. 2001 Aug;60(2):777-85. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1755.2001.060002777.x.
The replacement of renal function for critically ill patients is procedurally complex and expensive, and none of the available techniques have proven superiority in terms of benefit to patient mortality. In hemodynamically unstable or severely catabolic patients, however, the continuous therapies have practical and theoretical advantages when compared with conventional intermittent hemodialysis (IHD).
We present a single center experience accumulated over 18 months since July 1998 with a hybrid technique named sustained low-efficiency dialysis (SLED), in which standard IHD equipment was used with reduced dialysate and blood flow rates. Twelve-hour treatments were performed nocturnally, allowing unrestricted access to the patient for daytime procedures and tests.
One hundred forty-five SLED treatments were performed in 37 critically ill patients in whom IHD had failed or been withheld. The overall mean SLED treatment duration was 10.4 hours because 51 SLED treatments were prematurely discontinued. Of these discontinuations, 11 were for intractable hypotension, and the majority of the remainder was for extracorporeal blood circuit clotting. Hemodynamic stability was maintained during most SLED treatments, allowing the achievement of prescribed ultrafiltration goals in most cases with an overall mean shortfall of only 240 mL per treatment. Direct dialysis quantification in nine patients showed a mean delivered double-pool Kt/V of 1.36 per (completed) treatment. Mean phosphate removal was 1.5 g per treatment. Mild hypophosphatemia and/or hypokalemia requiring supplementation were observed in 25 treatments. Observed hospital mortality was 62.2%, which was not significantly different from the expected mortality as determined from the APACHE II illness severity scoring system.
SLED is a viable alternative to traditional continuous renal replacement therapies for critically ill patients in whom IHD has failed or been withheld, although prospective studies directly comparing two modalities are required to define the exact role for SLED in this setting.
为重症患者替代肾功能的操作复杂且费用高昂,而且现有的技术在降低患者死亡率方面均未显示出优势。然而,对于血流动力学不稳定或严重分解代谢的患者,与传统间歇性血液透析(IHD)相比,持续治疗在实际应用和理论上具有优势。
我们介绍自1998年7月起18个月内在单一中心积累的使用一种名为持续性低效透析(SLED)的混合技术的经验,该技术使用标准IHD设备,但降低了透析液和血流速度。夜间进行12小时治疗,白天可对患者进行不受限制地操作和检查。
对37例IHD治疗失败或未进行IHD治疗的重症患者进行了145次SLED治疗。由于51次SLED治疗提前终止,SLED治疗的总体平均时长为10.4小时。在这些提前终止的治疗中,11次是因为顽固性低血压,其余大多数是因为体外血液回路凝血。大多数SLED治疗期间血流动力学保持稳定,多数情况下能够实现规定的超滤目标,每次治疗总体平均短缺仅240毫升。对9例患者进行的直接透析定量显示,每次(完成的)治疗平均双池Kt/V为1.36。每次治疗平均磷清除量为1.5克。25次治疗中观察到需要补充的轻度低磷血症和/或低钾血症。观察到的医院死亡率为62.2%,与根据急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统(APACHE II)确定的预期死亡率无显著差异。
对于IHD治疗失败或未进行IHD治疗的重症患者,SLED是传统持续肾脏替代治疗的一种可行替代方案,不过需要进行直接比较两种模式的前瞻性研究,以确定SLED在这种情况下的确切作用。