Uchino Shigehiko, Bellomo Rinaldo, Morimatsu Hiroshi, Morgera Stanislao, Schetz Miet, Tan Ian, Bouman Catherine, Macedo Ettiene, Gibney Noel, Tolwani Ashita, Oudemans-van Straaten Heleen, Ronco Claudio, Kellum John A
Jikei University School of Medicine, Intensive Care Unit, Department of Anesthesiology, Tokyo, Japan.
Intensive Care Med. 2007 Sep;33(9):1563-70. doi: 10.1007/s00134-007-0754-4. Epub 2007 Jun 27.
Little information is available regarding current practice in continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) for the treatment of acute renal failure (ARF) and the possible clinical effect of practice variation.
Prospective observational study.
A total of 54 intensive care units (ICUs) in 23 countries.
A cohort of 1006 ICU patients treated with CRRT for ARF.
Collection of demographic, clinical and outcome data.
All patients except one were treated with venovenous circuits, most commonly as venovenous hemofiltration (52.8%). Approximately one-third received CRRT without anticoagulation (33.1%). Among patients who received anticoagulation, unfractionated heparin (UFH) was the most common choice (42.9%), followed by sodium citrate (9.9%), nafamostat mesilate (6.1%), and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH; 4.4%). Hypotension related to CRRT occurred in 19% of patients and arrhythmias in 4.3%. Bleeding complications occurred in 3.3% of patients. Treatment with LMWH was associated with a higher incidence of bleeding complications (11.4%) compared to UFH (2.3%, p = 0.0083) and citrate (2.0%, p = 0.029). The median dose of CRRT was 20.4 ml/kg/h. Only 11.7% of patients received a dose of > 35 ml/kg/h. Most (85.5%) survivors recovered to dialysis independence at hospital discharge. Hospital mortality was 63.8%. Multivariable analysis showed that no CRRT-related variables (mode, filter material, drug for anticoagulation, and prescribed dose) predicted hospital mortality.
This study supports the notion that, worldwide, CRRT practice is quite variable and not aligned with best evidence.
关于连续性肾脏替代治疗(CRRT)治疗急性肾衰竭(ARF)的当前实践以及实践差异可能产生的临床效果,现有信息较少。
前瞻性观察性研究。
23个国家的54个重症监护病房(ICU)。
1006例接受CRRT治疗ARF的ICU患者队列。
收集人口统计学、临床和结局数据。
除1例患者外,所有患者均采用静脉-静脉回路治疗,最常见的是静脉-静脉血液滤过(52.8%)。约三分之一的患者接受无抗凝的CRRT治疗(33.1%)。在接受抗凝治疗的患者中,普通肝素(UFH)是最常用的选择(42.9%),其次是枸橼酸钠(9.9%)、甲磺酸萘莫司他(6.1%)和低分子肝素(LMWH;4.4%)。与CRRT相关的低血压发生在19%的患者中,心律失常发生在4.3%的患者中。出血并发症发生在3.3%的患者中。与UFH(2.3%,p = 0.0083)和枸橼酸盐(2.0%,p = 0.029)相比,LMWH治疗的出血并发症发生率更高(11.4%)。CRRT的中位剂量为20.4 ml/kg/h。只有11.7%的患者接受了> 35 ml/kg/h的剂量。大多数(85.5%)幸存者在出院时恢复到无需透析。医院死亡率为63.8%。多变量分析表明,没有CRRT相关变量(模式、滤器材料、抗凝药物和规定剂量)可预测医院死亡率。
本研究支持这样一种观点,即在全球范围内,CRRT实践差异很大,且与最佳证据不一致。