Teschan P E, Baxter C R, O'Brien T F, Freyhof J N, Hall W H
Renal Branch, U.S. Army Surgical Research Unit, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, USA.
J Am Soc Nephrol. 1998 Dec;9(12):2384-97. doi: 10.1681/ASN.V9122384.
Prophylactic hemodialysis has been employed in the treatment of 15 patients with acute renal failure due to acute tubular necrosis (12), bilateral renal cortical necrosis (two), and poststreptococcal glomerulonephritis (one). Dialyses, usually lasting six hours each, were begun before clinical evidence of uremia developed in each patient and/or before the nonprotein nitrogen reached 200 mg.%, and were repeated daily or often enough to maintain the nonprotein nitrogen below 150 mg.%. The hypothesis underlying this technic postulates (1) that wasting, sepsis and impaired wound healing in these patients may reflect tissue injury by the same dialyzable toxic agents which produce the uremic symptoms that are readily reversible by dialysis, and (2) that repeated dialyses should therefore prevent both clinical uremia and the later, often lethal sequelae. The results contrast dramatically with our own past experience in treating patients with acute renal failure with a carefully executed medical regimen together with hemodialysis on conventional indications. Except in one instance of crush injury with progressive intracerebral damage, and one brief occasion in another individual, these patients experienced a stable, convalescent clinical course, remained free of uremic symptoms or chemical imbalances, ate at least three meals daily which were unrestricted in amount and composition, and were ambulatory between dialyses unless confined to bed by associated disease. Wounds healed well. Infection either did not occur, or subsided after appropriate therapy. Fluid restriction was liberalized by means of ultrafiltration with dialysis. Regional heparinization of only the extracorporeal circuit eliminated actual or impending bleeding as a contraindication to dialysis. Chronic vessel cannulation made the frequent dialyses possible, but may have provided the route for repeated, transient bacterial contamination of the blood stream in the first hour of many dialyses. Marked anemia, despite reticulocytosis, moderate to mild weight loss and some mental deficit persisted in spite of the general clinical improvement and well-being. Three patients with tubular necrosis died after seven, 11 and 26 days of oliguria; both patients with bilateral renal cortical necrosis also succumbed, on the seventy-third and ninety-second days of renal failure, and after 29 and 40 dialyses, respectively. At autopsy, evidence of sepsis was conspicuously absent. The remaining 10 patients survived. Thus some, but not all, clinical manifestations of acute renal failure appear to be favorably influenced by prophylactic dialysis treatment. Our initial experience in this group of 15 patients does not of course prove that freedom from complications and a significantly better outlook for survival can be assured to patients with acute renal failure by these methods. However, it seems to offer a reasonable hope of this possibility which we cannot attach to management by medical measures alone, or by dialysis on conventional indications. If this hope is realized in greatly extended, subsequent series, then it seems inevitable that some form of prophylactic dialysis, or some equally effective alternative, should be adopted in treating the majority of patients with acute renal failure.
