Extracorporeal treatment strategy in acute renal failure

The mortality of acute renal failure remains high (around 50-70%) despite manifold improvements in terms of techniques and equipment for renal replacement therapies as well as patient monitoring and intensive care support. At present, it is not clear if the method chosen for renal replacement therapy, i.e. intermittent hemodialysis or continuous hemofiltration, might impact on the outcome of these patients. Whilst earlier retrospective studies suggested that CVVH might result in better survival and renal recovery in acute patients, recent prospective studies indicated that this may not be the case or, conversely, outcomes may be better with IHD. These studies were, however, not evenly randomised in terms of illness severity or were too small to produce conclusive results. In addition, a meta-analysis of 9 published prospective studies in 692 pts. indicated a similar mortality with CVVH vs. IHD. Some of the studies enrolled for this meta-analysis, however, suffered from methodological and/or randomisation problems, thus this important question remains to date unanswered. Typically, CVVH is chosen for treating patients with hemodynamic instability and volume overload. In such cases, however, CVVH should be performed with a filtrate volume of at least 35 ml/kg body weight per hour as this was shown to be associated with better survival as compared to smaller filtrate volumes. A second controversy exists to date whether the choice of the dialyzer membrane might be of relevance for the outcome of patients with acute renal failure. Earlier studies indicated that the use of biocompatible membranes in these patients may result in improved patient survival and renal recovery. More recently, however, similar studies could not confirm these results. Another meta-analysis of controlled prospective trials (671 patients in 7 separate studies) calculated a relative mortality risk of 1.01 for cuprophan vs. biocompatible membranes. Thus, the choice of the dialyzer membrane should be based on individual assessment rather than treatment bias.