Continuous renal replacement therapy compared with intermittent hemodialysis in intensive care: which is better?

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 537-541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stuart Abramson ◽  
Ajay K. Singh
1994 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 265-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric F. H. van Bommel ◽  
Karel M. L. Leunissen ◽  
Willem Weimar

van Bommel EFH, Leunissen KML, Weimar W. Continuous renal replacement therapy for critically ill patients: an update. J Intensive Care Med 1994; 9: 265–280. Despite continuous progress in intensive care during the last decades, the outcome of critically ill patients in whom acute renal failure (ARF) develops is still poor. This outcome may be explained partially by the frequent occurrence of ARF as part of multiple organ systems failure (MOSF). In this complex and unstable patient population, the provision of adequate renal support with either intermittent hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis may pose major problems. Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is now increasingly accepted as the preferred treatment modality in the management of ARF in these patients. The technique offers adequate control of biochemistry and fluid balance in hemodynamically unstable patients, thereby enabling aggressive nutritional and inotropic support without the risk of exacerbating azotemia or fluid overload. In addition, experimental and clinical data suggest that CRRT may have a beneficial influence on hemodynamics and gas exchange in patients with septic shock and (nonrenal) MOSF, independent of an impact on fluid balance. We review both technical and clinical aspects of various continuous therapies, including their impact on serum drug levels and nutrient balance. In addition, an attempt is made to clarify the possible beneficial role of CRRT in reducing patient morbidity and mortality in the ICU.


2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 395-398 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick M. Wieruszewski ◽  
Arnaldo Lopez-Ruiz ◽  
Robert C. Albright ◽  
Jennifer E. Fugate ◽  
Erin Frazee Barreto

The objective of this study is to describe the pharmacokinetics of lacosamide in a critically ill adult during continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH). A 78-year-old male developed sepsis and acute kidney injury following cardiac surgery. He was initially treated with intermittent hemodialysis but developed nonconvulsive status epilepticus at the end of the first session and was subsequently initiated on CVVH. In addition to lorazepam boluses, levetiracetam, and midazolam infusion, he was loaded with lacosamide 400 mg intravenously and started on 200 mg intravenously twice daily as maintenance therapy. Noncompartmental modeling of lacosamide pharmacokinetics revealed significant extracorporeal removal, a volume of distribution of 0.69 L/kg, elimination half-life of 13.6 hours, and peak and trough concentrations of 7.4 and 3.7 mg/L, respectively (goal trough, 5-10 mg/L). We found significant extracorporeal removal of serum lacosamide during CVVH, which was higher than previously reported. This led to subtherapeutic concentrations and decreased overall antiepileptic drug exposure. The relationship between serum lacosamide concentrations and clinical efficacy is not well understood; thus, therapeutic drug monitoring is not routinely recommended. Yet, we demonstrated that measuring serum lacosamide concentrations in the critically ill population during continuous renal replacement therapy may be useful to individualize dosing programs. Further pharmacokinetic studies of lacosamide may be necessary to generate widespread dosing recommendations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document