Suppr超能文献

持续静静脉血液滤过与延长每日透析滤过的初步随机对照比较:对小分子溶质和酸碱平衡的影响。

A pilot randomised controlled comparison of continuous veno-venous haemofiltration and extended daily dialysis with filtration: effect on small solutes and acid-base balance.

作者信息

Baldwin Ian, Naka Toshio, Koch Bill, Fealy Nigel, Bellomo Rinaldo

机构信息

Department of Intensive Care, Austin Health, 3084, Heidelberg, Australia.

School of Nursing and Midwifery, Department of Gerontic Nursing, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

出版信息

Intensive Care Med. 2007 May;33(5):830-835. doi: 10.1007/s00134-007-0596-0. Epub 2007 Mar 24.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Continuous veno-venous haemofiltration (CVVH) is an established treatment for acute renal failure (ARF). Recently, extended intermittent dialytic techniques have been proposed for the treatment of ARF. The aim of this study was to compare these two approaches.

SETTING

Intensive care unit of tertiary hospital.

SUBJECTS

Sixteen critically ill patients with ARF.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

INTERVENTION

We randomised sixteen patients to three consecutive days of treatment with either CVVH (8) or extended daily dialysis with filtration (EDDf) (8) and compared small-solute, electrolyte and acid-base control.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between the two therapies for urea or creatinine levels over 3 days. Of 80 electrolyte measurements taken before treatment, 19 were abnormal. All values were corrected as a result of treatment, except for one patient in the CVVH group who developed hypophosphataemia (0.54 mmol/l) at 72 h. After 3 days of treatment, there was a mild but persistent metabolic acidosis in the EDDf group compared to the CVVH group (median bicarbonate: 20 mmol/l vs. 29 mmol/l: p=0.039; median base deficit: -4 mEq/l vs. -2.1 mEq/l, p=0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

CVVH and EDDf as prescribed achieved similar control of urea, creatinine and electrolytes. Acidosis was better controlled with CVVH.

摘要

背景与目的

连续性静脉-静脉血液滤过(CVVH)是治疗急性肾衰竭(ARF)的一种成熟方法。最近,有人提出采用延长间歇性透析技术治疗ARF。本研究旨在比较这两种方法。

设置

三级医院重症监护病房。

研究对象

16例ARF重症患者。

设计

随机对照试验。

干预措施

我们将16例患者随机分为两组,分别接受连续3天的CVVH治疗(8例)或延长每日滤过透析(EDDf)治疗(8例),并比较小分子溶质、电解质及酸碱平衡的控制情况。

结果

两种治疗方法在3天内的尿素或肌酐水平无显著差异。治疗前进行的80次电解质测量中,19次异常。除CVVH组1例患者在72小时时出现低磷血症(0.54 mmol/L)外,所有值经治疗后均得到纠正。治疗3天后,与CVVH组相比,EDDf组存在轻度但持续的代谢性酸中毒(中位碳酸氢盐:20 mmol/L对29 mmol/L,p = 0.039;中位碱缺失:-4 mEq/L对-2.1 mEq/L,p = 0.033)。

结论

按规定实施的CVVH和EDDf在控制尿素、肌酐和电解质方面效果相似。CVVH对酸中毒的控制更佳。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验