ACUTE DIALYTIC SUPPORT FOR THE CRITICALLY ILL - INTERMITTENT HEMODIALYSIS VERSUS CONTINUOUS ARTERIOVENOUS HEMODIAFILTRATION

There is still debate about whether continuous renal replacement therapy is superior to intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) as dialytic support for the critically ill patient with acute renal failure, mainly because of lack of comparative data. We sought to address this issue by reviewing the medical records of such patients admitted to a single surgical intensive care unit treated with either continuous arteriovenous hemodiafiltration (CAVHD) or IHD between January 1, 1986, and August 31, 1993. Of 94 consecutive patients who received dialytic support for severe acute renal failure, 34 (36%) patients were treated with IHD and 60 (64%) patients with CAVHD. The patients were comparable in terms of age or gender and represented a similar case mix. Patients treated with CAVHD were more severely ill as manifested by a lower mean arterial pressure (75 +/- 3 vs. 86 +/- 5 mm Hg; p < 0.05), higher Apache II score (26.5 +/- 0.5 vs. 22.2 +/- 0.3; p < 0.05), and a higher number of organ system failures (3.4 +/- 0.2 vs. 2.6 +/- 0.3; p < 0.05). Despite greater illness severity and a higher probability of death (55 +/- 2.6 vs. 33 +/- 2.5%; p < 0.0001), in those treated with CAVHD, no difference in outcome was observed between groups: CAVHD 26/60 (43%) vs. IHD 20/34 (59%; NS). The mean Apache II score of patients treated with CAVHD who survived was similar to that of patients treated with IHD who died (24.5 +/- 0.3 vs. 24.2 +/- 0.4; NS). CAVHD was associated with improved hemodynamic stability, better control of fluid balance and biochemistry, increased nutritional intake, and a shorter duration of acute renal failure (p < 0.05). Our data suggest that CAVHD offers several distinct advantages over IHD which may translate in improved survival, particularly in the more severely ill patients.