Author(s):
Marcelino, Paulo 
; Marum, Susan ; Fernandes, Ana Paula ; Ribeiro, J P
Date: 2007
Origin: Acta Médica Portuguesa
Document details
Hybrid or continuous renal replacement techniques for unstable haemodynamic pat...
Description
Comparative study to evaluate the impact of a hybrid renal replacement technique (HRRT) vs a continuous renal replacement technique (haemodiafiltration) on hemodynamic tolerance, azotemic control, and mortality in critical care patients with acute renal failure.a 14-bed Intensive Care Unit (ICU).Two groups of patients were retrospectively compared: patients submitted to continuous renal replacement techniques (CRRT) in 2003 (n = 26) and patients who underwent HRRT in 2004 (n = 27). Both groups had similar severity scores and underlying diseases, and were haemodynamically unstable. Urea and creatinine reduction ratio (URR and CRR) in both groups were evaluated.Patients treated with HRRT presented a lower mortality (62% vs 84%), less heparin use, and a higher URR and CRR. Univariate logistic regression showed that an increase in APACHE II was related to an increase in mortality (CI 95%, 1.03-1.26). Odds for mortality for CRRT group were about 3 times higher (CI 95%, 0.86-12.11), but not statistically significant (p = 0.074).HRRT is a valid alternative to CRRT in haemodynamically unstable critically ill patients. Comparative study to evaluate the impact of a hybrid renal replacement technique (HRRT) vs a continuous renal replacement technique (haemodiafiltration) on hemodynamic tolerance, azotemic control, and mortality in critical care patients with acute renal failure.a 14-bed Intensive Care Unit (ICU).Two groups of patients were retrospectively compared: patients submitted to continuous renal replacement techniques (CRRT) in 2003 (n = 26) and patients who underwent HRRT in 2004 (n = 27). Both groups had similar severity scores and underlying diseases, and were haemodynamically unstable. Urea and creatinine reduction ratio (URR and CRR) in both groups were evaluated.Patients treated with HRRT presented a lower mortality (62% vs 84%), less heparin use, and a higher URR and CRR. Univariate logistic regression showed that an increase in APACHE II was related to an increase in mortality (CI 95%, 1.03-1.26). Odds for mortality for CRRT group were about 3 times higher (CI 95%, 0.86-12.11), but not statistically significant (p = 0.074).HRRT is a valid alternative to CRRT in haemodynamically unstable critically ill patients.
Comparative study to evaluate the impact of a hybrid renal replacement technique (HRRT) vs a continuous renal replacement technique (haemodiafiltration) on hemodynamic tolerance, azotemic control, and mortality in critical care patients with acute renal failure.a 14-bed Intensive Care Unit (ICU).Two groups of patients were retrospectively compared: patients submitted to continuous renal replacement techniques (CRRT) in 2003 (n = 26) and patients who underwent HRRT in 2004 (n = 27). Both groups had similar severity scores and underlying diseases, and were haemodynamically unstable. Urea and creatinine reduction ratio (URR and CRR) in both groups were evaluated.Patients treated with HRRT presented a lower mortality (62% vs 84%), less heparin use, and a higher URR and CRR. Univariate logistic regression showed that an increase in APACHE II was related to an increase in mortality (CI 95%, 1.03-1.26). Odds for mortality for CRRT group were about 3 times higher (CI 95%, 0.86-12.11), but not statistically significant (p = 0.074).HRRT is a valid alternative to CRRT in haemodynamically unstable critically ill patients. Comparative study to evaluate the impact of a hybrid renal replacement technique (HRRT) vs a continuous renal replacement technique (haemodiafiltration) on hemodynamic tolerance, azotemic control, and mortality in critical care patients with acute renal failure.a 14-bed Intensive Care Unit (ICU).Two groups of patients were retrospectively compared: patients submitted to continuous renal replacement techniques (CRRT) in 2003 (n = 26) and patients who underwent HRRT in 2004 (n = 27). Both groups had similar severity scores and underlying diseases, and were haemodynamically unstable. Urea and creatinine reduction ratio (URR and CRR) in both groups were evaluated.Patients treated with HRRT presented a lower mortality (62% vs 84%), less heparin use, and a higher URR and CRR. Univariate logistic regression showed that an increase in APACHE II was related to an increase in mortality (CI 95%, 1.03-1.26). Odds for mortality for CRRT group were about 3 times higher (CI 95%, 0.86-12.11), but not statistically significant (p = 0.074).HRRT is a valid alternative to CRRT in haemodynamically unstable critically ill patients.
Document Type
Article
Language Portuguese
Language Portuguese
| Financiadores do RCAAP | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||