Comparison of the therapeutic effectiveness of sustained low-efficiency dialysis (SLED) with continuous blood purification (CBP) in critically ill patients

Switching from continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration to intermittent sustained low-efficiency daily hemodiafiltration (SLED-f) in pediatric acute kidney injury: A prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) is the preferred modality in critically ill children with acute kidney injury. Upon improvement, intermittent hemodialysis is usually initiated as a step-down therapy, which can be associated with several adverse events. Hybrid therapies such as Sustained low-efficiency daily dialysis with pre-filter replacement (SLED-f) combines the slow sustained features of a continuous treatment, ensuring hemodynamic stability, with similar solute clearance along with the cost effectiveness of conventional intermittent hemodialysis. We examined the feasibility of using SLED-f as a transition step-down therapy after CKRT in critically ill pediatric patients with acute kidney injury.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted in children admitted to our tertiary care pediatric intensive care units with multi-organ dysfunction syndrome including acute kidney injury who received CKRT for management. Those patients receiving fewer than two inotropes to maintain perfusion and failed a diuretic challenge were switched to SLED-f.

RESULTS

Eleven patients underwent 105 SLED-f sessions (mean of 9.55 +/- 4.90 sessions per patient), as a part of step-down therapy from continuous hemodiafiltration. All (100%) our patients had sepsis associated acute kidney injury with multiorgan dysfunction and required ventilation. During SLED-f, urea reduction ratio was 64.1 +/- 5.3%, Kt/V was 1.13 +/- 0.1, and beta-2 microglobulin reduction was 42.5 +/-4%. Incidence of hypotension and requirement of escalation of inotropes during SLED-f was 18.18%. Filter clotting occurred twice in one patient.

CONCLUSION

SLED-f is a safe and effective modality for use as a transition therapy between CKRT and intermittent hemodialysis in children in the PICU.

Differential clinical benefits of continuous blood purification treatment in critically ill patients with variable APACHE II scores

The present study aimed to assess whether the Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score may be used to predict whether critically ill patients benefit from continuous blood purification (CBP) treatment. A total of 115 critically ill patients were retrospectively reviewed and grouped according to their baseline APACHE II scores. Each group was further divided into 2 groups based on whether they received CBP or not. At 72 h after CBP treatment, clinical indicators comprising the plasma levels of inflammatory cytokines, including tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α, interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-8, as well as endotoxin and procalcitonin (PCT), and severity scores (APACHE II, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and systemic inflammatory response syndrome), were analyzed in all patients. It was observed that while CBP slightly reduced the severity scores in all patients, it significantly improved those in patients with an APACHE II score of 20-29 (P<0.05). Similarly, the plasma levels of TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, endotoxin and PCT were significantly lower in patients receiving CBP than in those without CBP when the APACHE II score was 20-29 (P<0.05). Furthermore, CBP treatment significantly decreased the fatality rate and length of stay at the intensive care unit (ICU) for critically ill patients with an APACHE II score of 20-29 (P<0.05). In conclusion, CBP significantly decreases the inflammatory response, shortens the length of stay at the ICU and improves the prognosis for critically ill patients with an APACHE II score of 20-29 points. This observation suggests that the APACHE II score is an important clinical indicator to determine the potential benefit of CBP therapy in critically ill patients.

Prolonged intermittent renal replacement therapy in children

Wide ranges of age and weight in pediatric patients makes renal replacement therapy (RRT) in acute kidney injury (AKI) challenging, particularly in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU), wherein children are often hemodynamically unstable. Standard hemodialysis (HD) is difficult in this group of children and continuous veno-venous hemofiltration/dialysis (CVVH/D) has been the accepted modality in the developed world. Unfortunately, due to cost constraints, CVVH/D is often not available and peritoneal dialysis (PD) remains the common mode of RRT in resource-poor facilities. Acute PD has its drawbacks, and intermittent HD (IHD) done slowly over a prolonged period has been explored as an alternative. Various modes of slow sustained IHD have been described in the literature with the recently introduced term prolonged intermittent RRT (PIRRT) serving as an umbrella terminology for all of these modes. PIRRT has been widely accepted in adults with studies showing it to be as effective as CVVH/D but with an added advantage of being more cost-effective. Pediatric data, though scanty, has been promising. In this current review, we elaborate on the practical aspects of undertaking PIRRT in children as well as summarize its current status.

集束化护理在重症急性胰腺患者胃肠功能恢复中的应用

重症急性胰腺炎(severe acute pancreatitis, SAP)是临床中常见的发病率高、并发症多、死亡率较高的疾病, 其死亡的主要原因是并发了不同程度的多器官功能障碍综合征(multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, MODS), 全身炎症反应综合征(systemic inflammatory response syndrome, SIRS)是导致MODS的重要基础, 而胃肠功能障碍又是激发SIRS的源头. 因此, 胃肠功能障碍在该病的发生发展过程中起重要作用, 早期胃肠功能恢复有助于疾病的恢复和并发症的预防. 集束化护理的运用, 可以使每一位患者在有限的时间内, 得到最有效的治疗, 这是集束化护理最突出的特点. 文章就集束化护理在SAP患者的胃肠功能恢复中的应用进行简要综述, 为临床工作提供循证参考.

Dialysis and acute kidney injury: current evidence

Optimization of renal replacement therapy (RRT) for severe acute kidney injury (AKI) has been intensively studied over the last decade. Several large recently published randomized trials have clarified uncertainties regarding dialysis modality selection as well as dialysis dosage. This information will help inform decision makers regarding resource allocation and establishment of treatment targets. The decision to initiate dialysis remains a clinical one, based on individual patient needs. Despite technological advances in renal replacement therapy, AKI continues to be associated with poor outcomes.

Sustained low-efficiency daily diafiltration for diabetic nephropathy patients with acute kidney injury

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy, safety and cost of treating patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) and diabetic nephropathy (DN) with continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) or sustained low-efficiency daily diafiltration with hemofiltration (SLEDD-f).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Medical records of patients with AKI/DN from January 2006 to December 2012 were reviewed. Fifty-five patients who received CRRT and 52 who received SLEDD-f were included in the study. CRRT and SLEDD-f were performed for 20-72 h per session and 8-10 h per session, respectively. Mortality and renal function recovery rates were evaluated 30 days after the initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) and APACHE-II and SOFA scores, anticoagulant dose, inflammatory indices and cost were calculated at baseline and at the end of RRT.

RESULTS

Of the 55 patients treated with CRRT, 49 (89.1%) had a 30-day survival rate and 30 (54.5%) had a 30-day renal recovery rate. Of the 52 patients with SLEDD-f, these rates were 92.3% (n = 48) and 61.5% (n = 32), respectively. The dosage of low-molecular-weight heparin in the CRRT and SLEDD-f groups was 15,230 ± 1,460 and 6,320 ± 490 U/day, respectively. The cost of hemopurification and the total cost for patients treated with CRRT was CNY 28,628 ± 5,576 (USD 4,210 ± 820) and CNY 38,828 ± 6,324 (USD 5,710 ± 930), respectively. These were higher than those for patients treated with SLEDD-f at CNY 13,260 ± 1,564 (USD 1,950 ± 230) and CNY 19,720 ± 2,652 (USD 2,900 ± 390), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SLEDD-f offered a similar chance of renal recovery and also had further advantages such as a lower heparin dosage, a shorter therapy time and lower hospitalization costs for patients than CRRT. Studies with larger, randomized sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings.