Journal of critical care · 2022
Applying bio-impedance vector analysis (BIVA) to adjust ultrafiltration rate in critically ill patients on continuous renal replacement therapy: A randomized controlled trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rashid Farokhi Farin, Kalateh Effat, Shafaghi Shadi, Schneider Antoine Guillaume, Mortazavi Seyed Mehdi, Jamaati Hamidreza, Hashemian Seyed Mohammad Reza
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Bioimpedance vector analysis (BIVA) has been suggested as a valuable tool in assessing volume status in critically ill patients. However, its effectiveness in guiding fluid removal by continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) has not been evaluated.
METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 65 critically ill patients receiving CRRT were allocated on a 1:1 ratio to have UF prescribed and adjusted using BIVA fluid assessment in the intervention group (32 patients) or conventional clinical parameters (33 patients). The primary outcome was the lean body mass (LBM) water content at CRRT discontinuation, and the secondary outcomes included the mortality rate, urinary output, the duration of ventilation support, and ICU stay.
RESULTS: The study group was associated with a lower water content of LBM (80.7 ± 9.4 vs. 85.9 ± 10.4%; p < 0.05), and a higher mean UF-rate and urinary output (1.5 ± 0.8 vs. 1.2 ± 0.5 ml/kg/h and 0.9 ± 0.9 vs 0.5 ± 0.6 ml/kg/h, both: p < 0.05). The mortality rate, the length of ICU stay, and ventilation support duration were similar.
CONCLUSION: BIVA guided UF prescription may be associated with a lower rate of fluid overload. Larger studies are required to evaluate its impact on patients' outcomes.
METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, 65 critically ill patients receiving CRRT were allocated on a 1:1 ratio to have UF prescribed and adjusted using BIVA fluid assessment in the intervention group (32 patients) or conventional clinical parameters (33 patients). The primary outcome was the lean body mass (LBM) water content at CRRT discontinuation, and the secondary outcomes included the mortality rate, urinary output, the duration of ventilation support, and ICU stay.
RESULTS: The study group was associated with a lower water content of LBM (80.7 ± 9.4 vs. 85.9 ± 10.4%; p < 0.05), and a higher mean UF-rate and urinary output (1.5 ± 0.8 vs. 1.2 ± 0.5 ml/kg/h and 0.9 ± 0.9 vs 0.5 ± 0.6 ml/kg/h, both: p < 0.05). The mortality rate, the length of ICU stay, and ventilation support duration were similar.
CONCLUSION: BIVA guided UF prescription may be associated with a lower rate of fluid overload. Larger studies are required to evaluate its impact on patients' outcomes.