Intensive care medicine · 2016
Continuous renal replacement therapy versus intermittent hemodialysis in intensive care patients: impact on mortality and renal recovery.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Truche Anne-Sophie, Darmon Michael, Bailly Sébastien, Clec'h Christophe, Dupuis Claire, Misset Benoit, Azoulay Elie, Schwebel Carole, Bouadma Lila, Kallel Hatem, Adrie Christophe, Dumenil Anne-Sylvie, Argaud Laurent, Marcotte Guillaume, Jamali Samir, Zaoui Philippe, Laurent Virginie, Goldgran-Toledano Dany, Sonneville Romain, Souweine Bertrand, Timsit Jean-Francois, OUTCOMEREA Study Group
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The best renal replacement therapy (RRT) modality remains controversial. We compared mortality and short- and long-term renal recovery between patients treated with continuous RRT and intermittent hemodialysis.
METHODS: Patients of the prospective observational multicenter cohort database OUTCOMEREA™ were included if they underwent at least one RRT session between 2004 and 2014. Differences in patients' baseline and daily characteristics between treatment groups were taken into account by using a marginal structural Cox model, allowing one to substantially reduce the bias resulting from confounding factors in observational longitudinal data analysis. The composite primary endpoint was 30-day mortality and dialysis dependency.
RESULTS: Among 1360 included patients with RRT, 544 (40.0 %) and 816 (60.0 %) were initially treated by continuous RRT and intermittent hemodialysis, respectively. At day 30, 39.6 % patients were dead. Among survivors, 23.8 % still required RRT. There was no difference between groups for the primary endpoint in global population (HR 1.00, 95 % CI 0.77-1.29; p = 0.97). In patients with higher weight gain at RRT initiation, mortality and dialysis dependency were significantly lower with continuous RRT (HR 0.54, 95 % CI 0.29-0.99; p = 0.05). Conversely, this technique appeared to be deleterious in patients without shock (HR 2.24, 95 % CI 1.24-4.04; p = 0.01). Six-month mortality and persistent renal dysfunction were not influenced by the RRT modality in patients with dialysis dependence at ICU discharge.
CONCLUSION: Continuous RRT did not appear to improve 30-day and 6-month patient outcomes. It seems beneficial for patients with fluid overload, but might be deleterious in the absence of hemodynamic failure.
METHODS: Patients of the prospective observational multicenter cohort database OUTCOMEREA™ were included if they underwent at least one RRT session between 2004 and 2014. Differences in patients' baseline and daily characteristics between treatment groups were taken into account by using a marginal structural Cox model, allowing one to substantially reduce the bias resulting from confounding factors in observational longitudinal data analysis. The composite primary endpoint was 30-day mortality and dialysis dependency.
RESULTS: Among 1360 included patients with RRT, 544 (40.0 %) and 816 (60.0 %) were initially treated by continuous RRT and intermittent hemodialysis, respectively. At day 30, 39.6 % patients were dead. Among survivors, 23.8 % still required RRT. There was no difference between groups for the primary endpoint in global population (HR 1.00, 95 % CI 0.77-1.29; p = 0.97). In patients with higher weight gain at RRT initiation, mortality and dialysis dependency were significantly lower with continuous RRT (HR 0.54, 95 % CI 0.29-0.99; p = 0.05). Conversely, this technique appeared to be deleterious in patients without shock (HR 2.24, 95 % CI 1.24-4.04; p = 0.01). Six-month mortality and persistent renal dysfunction were not influenced by the RRT modality in patients with dialysis dependence at ICU discharge.
CONCLUSION: Continuous RRT did not appear to improve 30-day and 6-month patient outcomes. It seems beneficial for patients with fluid overload, but might be deleterious in the absence of hemodynamic failure.