Prognostic Indexes and Mortality in Critically 111 Patients with Acute Renal Failure Treated with Different Dialytic Techniques
- 1 January 1996
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Renal Failure
- Vol. 18 (4) , 667-675
- https://doi.org/10.3109/08860229609047692
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the evolution of patients with acute renal failure (ARF) treated conservatively or with different dialytic techniques in an intensive care unit (ICU). From June 1992 to November 1994, 1087 consecutive patients were admitted in our ICU. Two hundred and twenty of these presented with ARF, and were divided into three groups: group I (control group): 156 patients with ARF who did not receive substitutive techniques; group II: 21 patients under intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD); group III: 43 patients under continuous hemodiafiltration (CHDF). The studied variables were age, etiology of renal failure, requirement of dialysis, type of dialysis, length of ICU and hospital stay, and renal function outcome. APACHE II and SAPS scores were recorded on admission and analyzed for hospital mortality. Chi-square test and the analysis of variance were used for the statistical analysis. Results are presented as mean ± SD. A p value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Although etiology of ARF was multifactorial, we found a high frequency of ARF due to sepsis (56.8%), hypoperfusion (58.7%), and acute tubular necrosis (62.5%). Sepsis and heart failure were clinical conditions associated to a greater mortality. We did not find any statistical difference between the two dialyzed groups for all the studied variables, nor between the three groups regarding APACHE II and hospital stay. Significant differences were found between dialyzed and non-dialyzedpatients respect to age, group I: 64.1 ± 13.6, group II: 56.4 ± 19.7, and group III: 56.0 ± 14.1 fp < 0.001), creatinine peak serum levels, group I: 260 ± 130, group II: 494 ± 209, and group III: 441 ± 170 μmol/L (p < 0.0001), and mortality, group 1:46.9%, group II: 66.7%, and group III: 76.2% (p < 0.002). SAPS score showed differences between the control group and the CHDF group 13.9 ± 4.8 and 16.4 ± 5.4 (p < 0.007), respectively. The use of dialytic techniques in critically ill ARF patients is associated with greater mortality. Prognostic indexes on admission did not correctly classify our patients with ARF. Continuous hemodiafiltration does not involve greater mortality or length of stay as compared to conventional dialysis.Keywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Removal of pro-inflammatory cytokines with renal replacement therapy: Sense or nonsense?Intensive Care Medicine, 1995
- Treatment of surgical and non-surgical septic multiorgan failure with bicarbonate hemodialysis and sequential hemofiltrationIntensive Care Medicine, 1995
- Renal Replacement Therapy in the Intensive Care UnitJournal of Intensive Care Medicine, 1994
- A Comparison of Continuous Arteriovenous Hemofiltration and Intermittent Hemodialysis in Acute Renal Failure Patients in the Intensive Care UnitAsaio Journal, 1993
- A Comparison of Conventional Dialytic Therapy and Acute Continuous Hemodiafiltration in the Management of Acute Renal Failure in the Critically IIIRenal Failure, 1993
- Efficacy of continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration with dialysis in patients with renal failureCritical Care Medicine, 1991
- Continuous arterial-venous hemodiafiltration in critically ill patientsCritical Care Medicine, 1990
- Influence of continuous haemofiltration on haemodynamics and central blood volume in experimental endotoxic shockIntensive Care Medicine, 1990
- Continuous Renal Replacement in the Critically IllAnaesthesia and Intensive Care, 1990
- Continuous arteriovenous hemofiltration as an adjunctive therapy for septic shockCritical Care Medicine, 1985