Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Crit Care Med. 2018 Oct;46(10):e988-e994. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003350.

A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial of High Cutoff Versus Standard Hemofiltration in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Kidney Injury.

Author information

1
Clinical School Johor Bahru, Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Malaysia.
2
Department of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.
3
Adult Critical Care Unit and Department of Renal & Transplant Medicine, The Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.
4
William Harvey Research Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
5
Department of Intensive Care, Alfred Hospital, Prahran, VIC, Australia.
6
Gambro Dialysatoren GmbH, Research & Development, Hechingen, Germany.
7
School of Medicine, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

In critically ill patients with acute kidney injury receiving vasopressors, high cytokine levels may sustain the shock state. High cutoff hemofiltration achieves greater cytokine removal in ex vivo and in animal models and may reduce the duration of shock but may also increase albumin losses.

DESIGN:

This was a single-center double-blind randomized controlled trial comparing continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff to continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard.

SETTING:

Tertiary care hospital in Australia.

PATIENTS:

Vasopressor-dependent patients in acute kidney injury who were admitted to the ICU.

INTERVENTIONS:

Norepinephrine-free time were calculated in critically ill vasopressor-dependent patients in acute kidney injury, randomized to either continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff or continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard.

MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS:

A total of 76 patients were randomized with the following characteristics (continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff vs continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard); median age of 65 versus 70 year, percentage of males 47% versus 68%, and median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scores of 25 versus 23.5. The median hours of norepinephrine-free time at day 7 were 32 (0-110.8) for continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff and 56 hours (0-109.3 hr) (p = 0.520) for continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard. Inhospital mortality was 55.6% with continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff versus 34.2% with continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard (adjusted odds ratio, 2.49; 95% CI, 0.81-7.66; p = 0.191). There was no significant difference in time to cessation of norepinephrine (p = 0.358), time to cessation of hemofiltration (p = 0.563), and filter life (p = 0.21). Serum albumin levels (p = 0.192) were similar and the median dose of IV albumin given was 90 grams (20-212 g) for continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff and 80 grams (15-132 g) for continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard (p = 0.252).

CONCLUSIONS:

In critically ill patients with acute kidney injury, continuous venovenous hemofiltration-high cutoff did not reduce the duration of vasopressor support or mortality or change albumin levels compared with continuous venovenous hemofiltration-standard.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wolters Kluwer
Loading ...
Support Center