Continuous renal replacement therapy versus intermittent hemodialysis in intensive care patients: impact on mortality and renal recovery.

Intensive Care Med. 2016 Jun 3. [Epub ahead of print] 


Truche AS, Darmon M, Bailly S, Clec'h C, Dupuis C, Misset B, Azoulay E, Schwebel C,Bouadma L, Kallel H, Adrie C, Dumenil AS, Argaud L, Marcotte G, Jamali S, Zaoui P, Laurent V,Goldgran-Toledano D, Sonneville R, Souweine B, Timsit JF; OUTCOMEREA Study Group.


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.