Santibáñez-Velázquez M, Sánchez-Montoya F, Alvirde-Gutiérrez L

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 254-257
PDF size: 57.95 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To know the survival rate in patients with RIFLE I and II stages on acute renal failure, treated with supportive care or continuous renal replacement therapy with PRISMA machine, at an intensive care unit.
Methods: There were included patients of both sexes, aged 16 to 69 years, with acute renal failure in RIFLE I and II stages and score of scale APACHE II lower than 36 points. The sample studied was divided in two groups: a group was treated with supportive care, and the other group received continuous renal replacement therapy via PRISMA machine. We compared mortality between both groups and the association with the RIFLE stages with Pearson’s χ² test.
Results: The average score of the scale APACHE I was 14 points, and the probability of death was 15 %. The patients with acute renal failure RIFLE I were 54.5 % and RIFLE II 45.5 %, with mortality of 30.4 % and 38.8 %, respectively. Patients in RIFLE I stage who received supportive care and continuous replacement therapy had non-statistical differences in mortality (p = 0.356). The mortality in patients with acute renal failure in RIFLE II stage treated with continuous replacement therapy was higher (p = 0.000).
Conclusions: Because of its accessibility and lower mortality, supportive care should be the initial procedure in patients with acute renal failure in RIFLE I and II stages.

REFERENCES

1. Mujtaba-Quadri KH, Huraib SO. Acute kidney failure in the intensive care unit. Saudi J Kidney Dis Transpl. 1998;9(3):267-72.

2. Mehta RL. Dialysis modality selection. En: Owen WF, Pereira BJG, Sayegh MH, editores. Dialysis and transplantation: A companion to Brenner & Rector’s The Kidney. Philadelphia: WB Sanders; 2000. p. 403-17.

3. Ronco C, Bellomo R, Ricci Z. Continuous renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2001;16(Suppl 5):67-72.

4. Schiffl H, Lang SM, Fischer R. Daily hemodialysis and the outcome of acute renal failure. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:305-10.

5. Bellomo R, Ronco C, Mehta RL. Nomenclature for continuous renal replacement therapies. Am J Kidney Dis. 1996;28(5 Suppl 3):S2-7.

6. Clark WR, Turk JE, Kraus MA, Gao D. Dose determinants in continuous renal replacement therapy. Artif Organs. 2003;27(9):815-20.

7. Hurford WE, Bigatello LM, Haspel KL, Hess D, Warren RL, editores. Critical care handbook of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Third edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Handbook; 2000. p. 764.

8. Lameire N, van Biesen W, Vanholder R, Colardijn F. The place of intermittent hemodialysis in the treatment of acute renal failure in the ICU patient. Kidney Int Suppl. 1998;66:S110-9.

9. Mehta RL, McDonald B, Gabbai FB, Pahl M, Pascual MT, Farkas A, et al. A randomized clinical trial of continuous versus intermittent dialysis for acute kidney failure. Kidney. 2001;60(3):1154-63.

10. Ronco C, Bellomo R, Homel P, Brendolan A, Dan M, Piccinni P, La Greca G. Effects of different doses in continuous veno-venous hemofi ltration on the results of acute renal failure: A prospective, randomized trial. Lancet. 2000;356(9223):26-30.

11. Yeun J, Depner T. Dialysis principles. En: Owen WF, Pereira BJG, Sayegh MH, editores. Dialysis and transplantation: A companion to Brenner & Rector’s The Kidney. Philadelphia: WB Sanders; 2000. p. 1-32.