Department of Medical Intensive Care, CHU de Caen, Caen, France.
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013 Feb;28(2):430-7. doi: 10.1093/ndt/gfs124. Epub 2012 Apr 25.
Little is known about the clinical impact on cardiovascular stability during intermittent haemodialysis (IHD) for acute kidney injury (AKI) of online monitoring devices that control blood volume (BV) and blood temperature in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. We compared different dialysis treatment modalities with or without these new systems among critically ill patients requiring IHD.
In a prospective single-centre three-arm randomized controlled trial, 600 dialysis sessions in 74 consecutive AKI critically ill patients were involved to assess intradialytic hypotension. Standard dialysis therapy with constant ultrafiltration (UF) rate, cool dialysate and high sodium conductivity (Treatment A) was compared to regimens with adjunctive interventions including BV control (Treatment B) and the combination of BV and active blood temperature control (Treatment C). Each dialysis session was randomly assigned to one of the three treatment arms and served as statistical unit.
Five hundred and seventy-two dialysis sessions were analysed (188, 190 and 194 in Treatments A, B and C, respectively). Hypotension occurred in 16.6% treatments, with similar rates among the arms. Haemodynamic parameters and dialysis-related complications did not differ between therapies. Based on generalized estimating equation adjusted to dialysate sodium conductivity, higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment the day of dialysis session, the need for vasopressors and lower systolic blood pressure at the onset of the session were identified as independent predictors of hypotensive episodes, whereas regimens containing the new online monitors were not.
These results suggest that both actively controlled body temperature and UF profiled by online monitoring systems have no significant impact on the incidence of intradialytic hypotension in the ICU setting. Further research is needed before the use of these new sophisticated automatic methods can be applied routinely to the ICU setting.
在重症监护病房(ICU)环境中,在线监测设备控制血液体积(BV)和血液温度,用于急性肾损伤(AKI)患者间歇性血液透析(IHD),但其对心血管稳定性的临床影响知之甚少。我们比较了需要 IHD 的危重症患者在不同透析治疗方式下是否使用这些新系统。
在一项前瞻性、单中心、三臂随机对照试验中,纳入了 74 例连续 AKI 危重症患者的 600 个透析治疗,以评估透析期间低血压。标准透析治疗采用恒速超滤(UF)率、冷却透析液和高钠导电性(治疗 A),与附加干预措施(BV 控制治疗 B 和 BV 联合主动血液温度控制治疗 C)的方案进行比较。每个透析治疗随机分配到三个治疗组之一,并作为统计单位。
分析了 572 个透析治疗(分别为治疗 A、B 和 C 的 188、190 和 194 个)。低血压的发生率为 16.6%,各组之间的发生率相似。治疗之间血流动力学参数和透析相关并发症无差异。基于调整透析液钠导电性的广义估计方程,透析当天序贯器官衰竭评估较高、需要血管加压药和透析开始时收缩压较低是低血压发作的独立预测因素,而包含新在线监测的方案则不是。
这些结果表明,主动控制体温和在线监测系统设定的 UF 对 ICU 环境中透析期间低血压的发生率没有显著影响。在这些新的复杂自动方法常规应用于 ICU 环境之前,需要进一步研究。