Wald Ron, Friedrich Jan O, Bagshaw Sean M, Burns Karen E A, Garg Amit X, Hladunewich Michelle A, House Andrew A, Lapinsky Stephen, Klein David, Pannu Neesh I, Pope Karen, Richardson Robert M, Thorpe Kevin, Adhikari Neill K J
Crit Care. 2012 Oct 24;16(5):R205. doi: 10.1186/cc11835.
Among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) needing continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), the effect of convective (via continuous venovenous hemofiltration [CVVH]) versus diffusive (via continuous venovenous hemodialysis [CVVHD]) solute clearance on clinical outcomes is unclear. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility of comparing these two modes in a randomized trial.
This was a multicenter open-label parallel-group pilot randomized trial of CVVH versus CVVHD. Using concealed allocation, we randomized critically ill adults with AKI and hemodynamic instability to CVVH or CVVHD, with a prescribed small solute clearance of 35 mL/kg/hour in both arms. The primary outcome was trial feasibility, defined by randomization of >25% of eligible patients, delivery of >75% of the prescribed CRRT dose, and follow-up of >95% of patients to 60 days. A secondary analysis using a mixed-effects model examined the impact of therapy on illness severity, defined by sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, over the first week.
We randomized 78 patients (mean age 61.5 years; 39% women; 23% with chronic kidney disease; 82% with sepsis). Baseline SOFA scores (mean 15.9, SD 3.2) were similar between groups. We recruited 55% of eligible patients, delivered >80% of the prescribed dose in each arm, and achieved 100% follow-up. SOFA tended to decline more over the first week in CVVH recipients (-0.8, 95% CI -2.1, +0.5) driven by a reduction in vasopressor requirements. Mortality (54% CVVH; 55% CVVHD) and dialysis dependence in survivors (24% CVVH; 19% CVVHD) at 60 days were similar.
Our results suggest that a large trial comparing CVVH to CVVHD would be feasible. There is a trend toward improved vasopressor requirements among CVVH-treated patients over the first week of treatment.
ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00675818.
在需要持续肾脏替代治疗(CRRT)的急性肾损伤(AKI)重症患者中,对流(通过持续静静脉血液滤过[CVVH])与扩散(通过持续静静脉血液透析[CVVHD])清除溶质对临床结局的影响尚不清楚。我们的目的是评估在一项随机试验中比较这两种模式的可行性。
这是一项关于CVVH与CVVHD的多中心开放标签平行组试点随机试验。采用隐匿分配,我们将患有AKI且血流动力学不稳定的成年重症患者随机分为CVVH组或CVVHD组,两组的小溶质清除率均规定为35 mL/kg/小时。主要结局是试验可行性,定义为>25%的 eligible患者被随机分组、给予>75%的规定CRRT剂量以及>95%的患者随访至60天。使用混合效应模型进行的二次分析研究了治疗对第一周内由序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分定义的疾病严重程度的影响。
我们随机分配了78例患者(平均年龄61.5岁;39%为女性;23%患有慢性肾脏病;82%患有脓毒症)。两组间基线SOFA评分(平均15.9,标准差3.2)相似。我们招募了55%的 eligible患者,每组均给予了>80%的规定剂量,并实现了100%的随访。由于血管升压药需求的减少,CVVH组患者在第一周内SOFA评分下降趋势更明显(-0.8,95%置信区间-2.1,+0.5)。60天时的死亡率(CVVH组为54%;CVVHD组为55%)以及幸存者中的透析依赖率(CVVH组为24%;CVVHD组为19%)相似。
我们的结果表明,一项比较CVVH与CVVHD的大型试验是可行的。在治疗的第一周内,接受CVVH治疗的患者血管升压药需求有改善的趋势。
ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT00675818。
原文中“eligible”未翻译,因为不清楚其在该语境下的确切含义,需结合更多背景信息确定准确译法。