26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Renal replacement therapy in adult and pediatric intensive care : Recommendations by an expert panel from the French Intensive Care Society (SRLF) with the French Society of Anesthesia Intensive Care (SFAR) French Group for Pediatric Intensive Care Emergencies (GFRUP) the French Dialysis Society (SFD)

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Acute renal failure (ARF) in critically ill patients is currently very frequent and requires renal replacement therapy (RRT) in many patients. During the last 15 years, several studies have considered important issues regarding the use of RRT in ARF, like the time to initiate the therapy, the dialysis dose, the types of catheter, the choice of technique, and anticoagulation. However, despite an abundant literature, conflicting results do not provide evidence on RRT implementation. We present herein recommendations for the use of RRT in adult and pediatric intensive care developed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system by an expert group of French Intensive Care Society (SRLF), with the participation of the French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care (SFAR), the French Group for Pediatric Intensive Care and Emergencies (GFRUP), and the French Dialysis Society (SFD). The recommendations cover 4 fields: criteria for RRT initiation, technical aspects (access routes, membranes, anticoagulation, reverse osmosis water), practical aspects (choice of the method, peritoneal dialysis, dialysis dose, adjustments), and safety (procedures and training, dialysis catheter management, extracorporeal circuit set-up). These recommendations have been designed on a practical point of view to provide guidance for intensivists in their daily practice.

          Related collections

          Most cited references159

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effects of different doses in continuous veno-venous haemofiltration on outcomes of acute renal failure: a prospective randomised trial.

          Continuous veno-venous haemofiltration is increasingly used to treat acute renal failure in critically ill patients, but a clear definition of an adequate treatment dose has not been established. We undertook a prospective randomised study of the impact different ultrafiltration doses in continuous renal replacement therapy on survival. We enrolled 425 patients, with a mean age of 61 years, in intensive care who had acute renal failure. Patients were randomly assigned ultrafiltration at 20 mL h(-1) kg(-1) (group 1, n=146), 35 mL h(-1) kg(-1) (group 2, n=139), or 45 mL h(-1) kg(-1) (group 3, n=140). The primary endpoint was survival at 15 days after stopping haemofiltration. We also assessed recovery of renal function and frequency of complications during treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat. Survival in group 1 was significantly lower than in groups 2 (p=0.0007) and 3 (p=0.0013). Survival in groups 2 and 3 did not differ significantly (p=0.87). Adjustment for possible confounding factors did not change the pattern of differences among the groups. Survivors in all groups had lower concentrations of blood urea nitrogen before continuous haemofiltration was started than non-survivors. 95%, 92%, and 90% of survivors in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, had full recovery of renal function. The frequency of complications was similarly low in all groups. Mortality among these critically ill patients was high, but increase in the rate of ultrafiltration improved survival significantly. We recommend that ultrafiltration should be prescribed according to patient's bodyweight and should reach at least 35 mL h(-1) kg(-1).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Ultrasonic locating devices for central venous cannulation: meta-analysis.

            To assess the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of ultrasound guided central venous cannulation. 15 electronic bibliographic databases, covering biomedical, science, social science, health economics, and grey literature. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Populations Patients scheduled for central venous access. INTERVENTION REVIEWED: Guidance using real time two dimensional ultrasonography or Doppler needles and probes compared with the anatomical landmark method of cannulation. Risk of failed catheter placement (primary outcome), risk of complications from placement, risk of failure on first attempt at placement, number of attempts to successful catheterisation, and time (seconds) to successful catheterisation. 18 trials (1646 participants) were identified. Compared with the landmark method, real time two dimensional ultrasound guidance for cannulating the internal jugular vein in adults was associated with a significantly lower failure rate both overall (relative risk 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.33) and on the first attempt (0.59, 0.39 to 0.88). Limited evidence favoured two dimensional ultrasound guidance for subclavian vein and femoral vein procedures in adults (0.14, 0.04 to 0.57 and 0.29, 0.07 to 1.21, respectively). Three studies in infants confirmed a higher success rate with two dimensional ultrasonography for internal jugular procedures (0.15, 0.03 to 0.64). Doppler guided cannulation of the internal jugular vein in adults was more successful than the landmark method (0.39, 0.17 to 0.92), but the landmark method was more successful for subclavian vein procedures (1.48, 1.03 to 2.14). No significant difference was found between these techniques for cannulation of the internal jugular vein in infants. An indirect comparison of relative risks suggested that two dimensional ultrasonography would be more successful than Doppler guidance for subclavian vein procedures in adults (0.09, 0.02 to 0.38). Evidence supports the use of two dimensional ultrasonography for central venous cannulation.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration versus intermittent haemodialysis for acute renal failure in patients with multiple-organ dysfunction syndrome: a multicentre randomised trial.

              Whether continuous renal replacement therapy is better than intermittent haemodialysis for the treatment of acute renal failure in critically ill patients is controversial. In this study, we compare the effect of intermittent haemodialysis and continuous venovenous haemodiafiltration on survival rates in critically ill patients with acute renal failure as part of multiple-organ dysfunction syndrome. Our prospective, randomised, multicentre study took place between Oct 1, 1999, and March 3, 2003, in 21 medical or multidisciplinary intensive-care units from university or community hospitals in France. Guidelines were provided to achieve optimum haemodynamic tolerance and effectiveness of solute removal in both groups. The two groups were treated with the same polymer membrane and bicarbonate-based buffer. 360 patients were randomised, and the primary endpoint was 60-day survival based on an intention-to-treat analysis. Rate of survival at 60-days did not differ between the groups (32% in the intermittent haemodialysis group versus 33% in the continuous renal replacement therapy group [95 % CI -8.8 to 11.1,]), or at any other time. These data suggest that, provided strict guidelines to improve tolerance and metabolic control are used, almost all patients with acute renal failure as part of multiple-organ dysfunction syndrome can be treated with intermittent haemodialysis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                christophe.vinsonneau@ch-melun.fr
                emma.allainlaunay@chu-nantes.fr
                clarisse.blayau@tnn.aphp.fr
                michael.darmon@chu-st-etienne.fr
                ducheyron-d@chu-caen.fr
                theophile.gaillot@chu-rennes.fr
                patrick.honore@uzbrussel.be
                etienne.javouhey@chu-lyon.fr
                thierry.krummel@chru-strasbourg.fr
                annie.lahoche@chru-lille.fr
                s.letacon@chu-nancy.fr
                matthieu.legrand@sls.aphp.fr
                mn.monchi@gmail.com
                christophe.ridel@gmail.com
                rene.robert@chu-poitiers.fr
                frederique.schortgen@hmn.aphp.fr
                bsouweine@chu-clermontferrand.fr
                patrick.vaillant@nck.aphp.fr
                lionel.velly@ap-hm.fr
                david.osman@bct.aphp.fr
                vong.lvp@free.fr
                Journal
                Ann Intensive Care
                Ann Intensive Care
                Annals of Intensive Care
                Springer Paris (Paris )
                2110-5820
                30 December 2015
                30 December 2015
                2015
                : 5
                : 58
                Affiliations
                [ ]Réanimation polyvalente, CH Melun, 77000 Melun, France
                [ ]CHU Nantes, Nantes, France
                [ ]CHU Tenon, 75020 Paris, France
                [ ]CHU Saint-Etienne, 42055 Saint-Etienne, France
                [ ]CHU Caen, 14033 Caen, France
                [ ]CHU Rennes, 35000 Rennes, France
                [ ]Intensive Care Department, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
                [ ]Réanimation pédiatrique spécialisée, CHU Lyon, 69677 Bron, France
                [ ]CHRU Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
                [ ]CHRU Lille, Lille, France
                [ ]CHU Nancy, Nancy, France
                [ ]CHU Saint-Louis Lariboisière, Paris, France
                [ ]CHU Poitiers, Poitiers, France
                [ ]CHU Mondor, 94000 Créteil, France
                [ ]CHU Clermont-Ferrand, Clermont-Ferrand, France
                [ ]CHU Necker, 75000 Paris, France
                [ ]CHU Marseille, Marseille, France
                [ ]CHU Bicêtre, 94, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France
                Article
                93
                10.1186/s13613-015-0093-5
                4695466
                26714808
                9347fb14-0b84-4d5a-94bc-c1eb1d10caac
                © Vinsonneau et al. 2015

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 3 July 2015
                : 27 November 2015
                Funding
                Funded by: French society of intensive care
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                renal replacement therapy,anticoagulation,dialysis dose,continuous renal replacement therapy,hemodialysis,citrate,recommendations

                Comments

                Comment on this article