Home > Riviste > Minerva Anestesiologica > Fascicoli precedenti > Minerva Anestesiologica 2014 May;80(5) > Minerva Anestesiologica 2014 May;80(5):595-609

ULTIMO FASCICOLO
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Estratti

MINERVA ANESTESIOLOGICA

Rivista di Anestesia, Rianimazione, Terapia Antalgica e Terapia Intensiva


Official Journal of the Italian Society of Anesthesiology, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care
Indexed/Abstracted in: Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 2,036


eTOC

 

REVIEWS  


Minerva Anestesiologica 2014 May;80(5):595-609

Copyright © 2014 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

lingua: Inglese

High-volume hemofiltration in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lehner G. F. 1, Wiedermann C. J. 2, Joannidis M. 1

1 Division of Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical University Innsbruck, Austria;
2 Department of Internal Medicine, Central Hospital of Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy


FULL TEXT  


BACKGROUND: High volume hemofiltration (HVHF) has been proposed as method for blood purification, especially under the condition of systemic inflammatory syndromes. Our goal was to evaluate the effects of HVHF in critically ill patients.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of randomized controlled trials containing original data comparing HVHF defined by a dose of >50 mL/kg/h versus standard volume hemofiltration in critically ill patients. The primary outcome assessed was mortality. Additional endpoints assessed were renal recovery, vasopressor dependency, cytokine reduction and adverse events.
RESULTS: Four studies investigating continuous HVHF and three studies examining pulse high volume hemofiltration (PHVHF) using prescribed doses between 62 and 85 mL/kg/h met the criteria for this systematic review and provided data eligible for meta-analysis on a total of 558 patients. Meta-analyses did not show an effect of continuous HVHF (odds ratio, OR: 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50-1.45; 4 trials; N.=473) or PHVHF (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.22-1.74; 3 trials; N.=85) on mortality (both combined: OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.60-1.22; 7 trials; N.=558). Continuous HVHF had no significant beneficial effect on renal recovery of survivors (OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.17-1.97; 3 trials; N.=445). Inconsistent reports of a more rapid hemodynamic stabilization or improved cytokine clearance were mainly restricted to PHVHF.
CONCLUSION: No clear overall beneficial effect of HVHF or PHVHF compared to standard volume hemofiltration can be detected.

inizio pagina

Publication History

Per citare questo articolo

Corresponding author e-mail

michael.joannidis@i-med.ac.at