RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Fluid management is an important goal of dialysis treatment. The accurate assessment of fluid status is still a challenge for clinical nephrologists. Bioimpedance analysis (BIA) has been proposed as an objective tool to assess hydration. METHODS: This was a prospective randomized controlled study to compare hydration status measured by clinical assessment compared to BIA using a body composition monitor (BCM). The primary outcome was defined as the decline of cardiac biomarker N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) from baseline to the end of the study. FINDINGS: About 281 chronic hemodialysis patients were assessed for eligibility, and 132 patients provided written informed consent to participate (65 BIA group, 67 clinical group). Predialytic NT-proBNP, and decline of NT-proBNP were similar in both groups. The amount of overhydration (2.18 ± 2.11 L vs. 1.29 ± 1.97 L; p 0.016) and the number of patients with severe overhydration (46.0% vs. 30.6%, p = 0.04) were significantly higher in the BIA group at the end of the study. Fluid accumulation in the interdialytic period was significantly lower in the clinical group (p = 0.013). Adverse events occurred more often in the BIA group (p = 0.032). The cumulative number of hypovolemic events was significantly higher in the BIA group (p = 0.002). DISCUSSION: Fluid management by BIA does not lead to a better cardiac outcome (appraised by surrogate markers) than fluid management by careful clinical assessment. Adapting the dry weight according to BIA results increases the risk of adverse events, especially hypovolemic episodes. Careful clinical fluid assessment is important for optimal care of chronic hemodialysis patients.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with a high mortality of up to 60%. The mode of renal replacement therapy (intermittent versus continuous) has no impact on patient survival. Sustained low efficiency dialysis using a single-pass batch dialysis system (SLED-BD) has recently been introduced for the treatment of dialysis-dependent AKI. To date, however, only limited evidence is available in the comparison of SLED-BD versus continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with AKI. METHODS: Prospective, randomized, interventional, clinical study at a surgical intensive care unit of a university hospital. Between 1 April 2006 and 31 January 2009, 232 AKI patients who underwent renal replacement therapy (RRT) were randomized in the study. Follow-up was assessed until 30 August 2009. Patients were either assigned to 12-h SLED-BD or to 24-h predilutional CVVH. Both therapies were performed at a blood flow of 100 to 120 ml/min. RESULTS: 115 patients were treated with SLED-BD (total number of treatments n = 817) and 117 patients with CVVH (total number of treatments n = 877).The primary outcome measure, 90-day mortality, was similar between groups (SLED: 49.6% vs. CVVH: 55.6%, P = 0.43). Hemodynamic stability did not differ between SLED-BD and CVVH, whereas patients in the SLED-BD group had significantly fewer days of mechanical ventilation (17.7 ± 19.4 vs. 20.9 ± 19.8, P = 0.047) and fewer days in the ICU (19.6 ± 20.1 vs. 23.7 ± 21.9, P = 0.04). Patients treated with SLED needed fewer blood transfusions (1,375 ± 2,573 ml vs. 1,976 ± 3,316 ml, P = 0.02) and had a substantial reduction in nursing time spent for renal replacement therapy (P < 0.001) resulting in lower costs. CONCLUSIONS: SLED-BD was associated with reduced nursing time and lower costs compared to CVVH at similar outcomes. In the light of limited health care resources, SLED-BD offers an attractive alternative for the treatment of AKI in ICU patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00322530.