Continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) is an effective form of renal replacement therapy for acute renal failure (ARF) that offers greater hemodynamic stability and better volume control than conventional hemodialysis in the critically ill, hypotensive patient. However, the application of CVVH in the intensive care unit (ICU) has several disadvantages, including intensive nursing requirements, continuous anticoagulation, patient immobility, and expense. We describe a new approach to the treatment of ARF in the ICU, which we have termed extended daily dialysis (EDD). In this study, EDD was compared with CVVH in 42 patients: 25 patients were treated with EDD for a total of 367 treatment days, and 17 patients were treated with CVVH for a total of 113 days. Median treatment time per day was 7.5 hours for EDD (range, 6 to 8 hours, 25th to 75th percentile) versus 19.5 hours for CVVH (range, 13.4 to 24 hours; P < 0.001). Mean arterial blood pressures (MAPs) did not differ significantly for patients treated with EDD when measured predialysis (median MAP, 70 versus 67 mm Hg for CVVH; P = 0.078), midway through daily treatment (70 versus 68 mm Hg for CVVH; P = 0.083), or at the end of treatment (71 versus 69 mm Hg for CVVH; P = 0.07). Net daily ultrafiltration was similar for the two treatment modalities (EDD, median, 3,000 mL/d; range, 1,763 to 4,445 mL/d; CVVH, 3,028 mL/d; range, 1,785 to 4,707 mL/d; P = 0.514). Anticoagulation requirements were significantly less for patients treated with EDD (median dose of heparin, 4,000 U/d; range, 0 to 5,800 U/d versus 21,100 U/d; range, 8,825 to 31,275 U/d for patients treated with CVVH; P < 0.001). We found that EDD eliminated the need for constant supervision of the dialysis machine by a subspecialty dialysis nurse, allowing one nurse to manage more than one treatment. Overall, EDD was well tolerated by the majority of patients, offered many of the same benefits provided by CVVH, and was technically easier to perform.