Honoré Patrick M, Joannes-Boyau Olivier, Gressens Benjamin
St-Pierre Para-University Hospital, Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Contrib Nephrol. 2007;156:371-86. doi: 10.1159/000102128.
From the recent past, hemofiltration, particularly high-volume hemofiltration, has rapidly evolved from a somewhat experimental treatment to a potentially effective 'adjunctive' therapy in severe septic shock and especially refractory or catecholamine-resistant hypodynamic septic shock. Nonetheless, this approach lacks prospective randomized studies (PRTs) evaluating the critical role of early hemofiltration in sepsis. An important milestone, which could be called the 'big bang' in terms of hemofiltration, was the publication of a PRT in patients with acute renal failure (ARF). Before this study, nobody believed that hemofiltration could change the survival rate in intensive care. Since that big bang, many physicians consider that hemofiltration at a certain dose can change the survival rate in intensive care. We now must try to define what the exact dose in septic ARF should be. As suggested by many studies this dose might well be higher than 35 ml/kg/h in the septic ARF group. The issue of the dosage of continuous high-volume hemofiltration must be tested in future randomized studies. Since the Vicenza study has shown that 35 ml/kg/h is the best dose in terms of survival when dealing with nonseptic ARF in the intensive care unit (ICU), several studies from different groups have shown that a higher dose might be correlated with better survival in septic ARF. This has also been shown in some way by the Vicenza group but not with a statistically significant value. New PRTs have just started in Europe such as the IVOIRE (hIgh VOlume in Intensive Care) study. The RENAL study is another large study looking more basically at dose in nonseptic ARF in Australasia. The ATN study in the USA is also testing the importance of dose in the treatment for ARF. Nevertheless, 'early goal-directed hemofiltration therapy' has to be studied in our critically ill patients. Regarding this issue, fewer studies, mainly retrospective, exist; but again the IVOIRE study will address this issue by studying septic patients with acute renal injury according to the RIFLE classification. This chapter will focus on the early application and adequate dose of continuous high-volume hemofiltration in septic shock in order to improve not only the hemodynamics but also survival in this very severely ill cohort of patients. This could be called the big bang of hemofiltration as one could have never anticipated that an adequate dose of hemofiltration could markedly influence the survival rate of septic ARF patients in the ICU. Apart from the use of an early and adequate dose of Honoré/Joannes-Boyau/Gressens 372 hemofiltration in sepsis, a higher dose could also provide a better renal recovery rate and reduce the risk of associate chronic dialysis in these patients. Furthermore, this presentation will also review brand-new papers regarding the use of hemofiltration in systemic inflammatory response syndrome and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
近年来,血液滤过,尤其是高容量血液滤过,已从某种程度上的实验性治疗迅速发展成为严重脓毒症休克,特别是难治性或对儿茶酚胺抵抗的低动力脓毒症休克中一种潜在有效的“辅助”治疗方法。尽管如此,这种方法缺乏评估早期血液滤过在脓毒症中关键作用的前瞻性随机研究(PRT)。一个重要的里程碑,可以说是血液滤过领域的“大爆炸”,是一项关于急性肾衰竭(ARF)患者的PRT研究发表。在这项研究之前,没有人相信血液滤过能改变重症监护中的生存率。自那次“大爆炸”以来,许多医生认为一定剂量的血液滤过可以改变重症监护中的生存率。我们现在必须尝试确定脓毒症相关性急性肾衰竭的确切剂量应该是多少。正如许多研究所表明的,脓毒症相关性急性肾衰竭组的这个剂量很可能高于35毫升/千克/小时。连续高容量血液滤过的剂量问题必须在未来的随机研究中进行测试。由于维琴察研究表明,在重症监护病房(ICU)处理非脓毒症相关性急性肾衰竭时,35毫升/千克/小时是生存方面的最佳剂量,不同研究团队的多项研究表明,更高的剂量可能与脓毒症相关性急性肾衰竭患者更好的生存率相关。维琴察团队也在某种程度上表明了这一点,但未达到统计学显著意义。新的PRT研究刚刚在欧洲启动,如IVOIRE(重症监护中的高容量)研究。RENA L研究是另一项主要针对澳大利亚和新西兰非脓毒症相关性急性肾衰竭剂量问题的大型研究。美国的ATN研究也在测试剂量在急性肾衰竭治疗中的重要性。然而,“早期目标导向性血液滤过治疗”必须在我们的重症患者中进行研究。关于这个问题,主要是回顾性研究较少;但IVOIRE研究将通过根据RIFLE分类研究急性肾损伤的脓毒症患者来解决这个问题。本章将重点关注连续高容量血液滤过在脓毒症休克中的早期应用和合适剂量,以便不仅改善血流动力学,还提高这一重症患者群体的生存率。这可以说是血液滤过的“大爆炸”,因为人们从未预料到适当剂量的血液滤过能显著影响ICU中脓毒症相关性急性肾衰竭患者的生存率。除了在脓毒症中早期使用适当剂量的血液滤过外,更高的剂量还可以提高这些患者的肾脏恢复率,并降低其相关慢性透析的风险。此外,本报告还将回顾关于血液滤过在全身炎症反应综合征和院外心脏骤停中应用的全新论文。